APPROVED: Jiangping Chen, Major Professor Guillermo Oyarce, Committee Member Brian O'Connor, Committee Member Suliman Hawamdeh, Chair of the
Department of Library and Information Sciences
James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School
THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING ON
POLICE OFFICERS` WILLINGNESS TO EXERT EXTRA EFFORT TO PROVIDE
BETTER SECURITY: A STUDY IN THE RIOT UNIT OF THE
TURKISH NATIONAL POLICE
Fatih Tombul, B.A., M.A.
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
August 2011
Tombul, Fatih. The impact of leadership styles and knowledge sharing on police
officers’ willingness to exert extra effort to provide better security: A study in the riot unit
of the Turkish National Police.Doctor of Philosophy (Information Science), August 2011,
158 pp., 27 tables, 8 figures, references, 93 titles.
The motivation for this study is to understand the factors affecting police officers’
willingness to exert extra effort for providing better service through knowledge sharing in
different working environments such as riots. Since managers’ leadership styles may be
important factors affecting subordinates’ willingness to exert extra effort, this study
investigates which of the leadership styles -- transformational, transactional or laissez-
faire leadership -- will have a positive effect on officers’ willingness to exert extra effort.
In addition, the current study also examines the effect of the mentioned leadership
styles on knowledge sharing, which, in turn, affects the officers’ willingness to exert
extra effort in the riot unit of the Turkish National Police (TNP) in Ankara, Turkey.
The sworn line police officers working in the riot unit in Ankara, Turkey, were the
participants in this study. Three questionnaires --a Multifactor Leadership (MLQ),
knowledge sharing, and demographic questionnaire -- were arranged as a booklet to be
distributed to the respondents.
The results of the study indicate that police supervisors` perceived
transformational leadership behavior has a positive effect on officers` willingness to
exert extra effort. In addition, the findings also reveal that although both officers` years
of service in TNP and police supervisors` perceived transactional leadership behavior
has no direct effect on officers` willingness to exert extra effort, they have an indirect
positive effect through officers` knowledge sharing. On the other hand, police
supervisors` perceive that laissez-fair leadership behavior has no effect on riot officers`
willingness to exert extra effort.
The findings also indicate that officers` knowledge sharing is positively related to
both their supervisors` perceived transformational and transactional leadership
behaviors. However, police supervisors` perceived laissez-fair leadership behavior has
no effect on officers` knowledge sharing activities.
This research study will provide police administrations with the data necessary to
adopt the most appropriate leadership styles for increasingpolice officers` knowledge
sharing and extra effort. The findings will also serve as guidance for police managers
commanding line police officers working in different environments, such as social
movements, demonstrations, and riots. In that they will be aware of how important it is
to create a knowledge sharing environment in riot units to provide better security in all
legal and illegal demonstrations and riots. Finally, the findings will be a valuable
resource not only for Turkish National Police, but also for future research studies and
various police organizations in other countries.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Numerous people have supported and contributed to the accomplishment of my
doctoral program and dissertation. First of all, I would like to express my great thanks to
my organization, the Turkish National Police, for providing the scholarship which
allowed me to maintain my doctoral education in the United States of America.
Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude to my doctoral committee, Dr.
Jiangping Chen, Dr. Guillermo Oyarce, and Dr. Brian O'Connor, for their great efforts
and contributions in the process of preparing this dissertation.
Additionally, I would like to thank to my dearest colleagues, especially Huseyin
Akdogan, for allocating their valuable time to provide comments and input in the
process of my doctoral program and dissertation.
Moreover, I offer great thanks to my parents Sevim and Fuat Tombul, and my big
brothers, Guner, Celal, and Mustafa Tombul, for motivating me in my studies with their
positive intentions.
Lastly, I am sincerely grateful to my wife Hatice for taking care of our children –
our daughter Ayse and sons Semih and Yavuz – throughout the completion of my
doctoral program. Without her interminable patience, encouragement, love, and
sacrifices none of this would have been possible. I am honored to have you and
indebted to you for everything you have done in my life.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
Overview .............................................................................................................. 1
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................... 4
Leadership ................................................................................................. 4
Working Environment................................................................................. 4
Knowledge, Information, and Data ............................................................. 5
Knowledge Sharing .................................................................................... 6
Explicit and Tacit Knowledge ..................................................................... 7
Problem Statement ............................................................................................... 7
Importance of the Study ....................................................................................... 9
Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................ 10
Overview of the Chapters ................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 12
Introduction to the Chapter ................................................................................. 12
Leadership .......................................................................................................... 12
Leadership Definitions and Theories ....................................................... 12
Knowledge Management and Knowledge Sharing .................................. 32
Summary ............................................................................................................ 47 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 48
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 48
Proposed Model ................................................................................................. 49
Research Questions and Hypotheses...................................................... 50
Operational Definitions of Variables ......................................................... 53
Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 55
Data Collection ........................................................................................ 64
v
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 71
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 71
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................ 71
Multivariate Analyses ............................................................................... 80
Mediated Analyses .................................................................................. 95 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ....................................................... 105
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 105
Summary and Discussion of the Findings ........................................................ 105
Theoretical and Methodological Implications .................................................... 116
Professional Implications .................................................................................. 117
Limitations and Future Recommendations ....................................................... 121 APPENDIX A PERMISSION LETTER FROM THE MIND GARDEN COMPANY ....... 123 APPENDIX B RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL LETTER .................. 125 APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT FORM ........................................................... 127 APPENDIX D DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................ 130 APPENDIX E MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE RATER FORM (5X-SHORT) (EXAMPLE) .................................................................................................. 132 APPENDIX F MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE SCORING KEY (5X) SHORT ........................................................................................................................ 135 APPENDIX G KNOWLEDGE SHARING QUESTIONNAIRE (EXAMPLE) ................. 138 APPENDIX H SCATTERPLOTS ................................................................................ 141 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 147
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
4.1 Gender Distribution ............................................................................................. 73
4.2 Age Group Distribution ....................................................................................... 73
4.3 Education Levels ................................................................................................ 74
4.4 Service Year ....................................................................................................... 74
4.5 Descriptive Statistics for Dependent and Independent Variables ....................... 76
4.6 Correlations ........................................................................................................ 79
4.7 Model 1 Summary Table for the First Regression Analysis of Extra Effort ......... 81
4.8 ANOVA Summary Table for the First Regression, Model 1 ................................ 82
4.9 Model 1 Coefficients ........................................................................................... 82
4.10 Model 2 Summary Table for the Second Regression Analysis of Extra Effort .... 84
4.11 ANOVA Summary Table for the Second Regression, Model 2 ........................... 84
4.12 Model 2 Coefficients ........................................................................................... 84
4.13 Model 3 Summary Table for the Third Regression Analysis of Extra Effort ........ 86
4.14 ANOVA Summary Table for the Third Regression, Model 3 ............................... 86
4.15 Model 3 Coefficients ........................................................................................... 87
4.16 Summary of OLS Regression Analyses of Officers` Extra Effort ........................ 88
4.17 Model 1 Summary Table for the First Regression Analysis of Knowledge Sharing ........................................................................................................................... 90
4.18 ANOVA Summary Table for the First Regression Model 1 ................................. 90
4.19 Model 1Coefficients ............................................................................................ 91
4.20 Model 2 Summary Table for the Second Regression Analysis of Knowledge Sharing ............................................................................................................... 92
4.21 ANOVA Summary Table for the Second Regression, Model 2 ........................... 92
4.22 Model 2 Coefficients ........................................................................................... 93
4.23 Summary of OLS Regression Analyses of Officers’ Knowledge Sharing ........... 94
4.24 Goodness of Fit Statistics for Generic and Respecified Models ......................... 99
4.25 Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects ...................................................................... 104
5.1 Summary of the Hypotheses Testing for the Officers' Willingness to Exert Extra Effort ................................................................................................................. 108
5.2 Summary of the Hypotheses Testing for Officers' Knowledge Sharing ............ 114
vii
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
3.1. Proposed model. ................................................................................................ 49
4.1. Respecified model. ........................................................................................... 100
4.2. Indirect model. .................................................................................................. 101
H.1. Residuals plot for the first regression model. .................................................... 142
H.2. Residuals plot for the second regression model. .............................................. 143
H.3. Residuals plot for the third regression model.................................................... 144
H.4. Residuals plot for the first regression model (knowledge sharing). ................... 145
H.5. Residuals plot for the second regression model (knowledge sharing). ............. 146
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Overview
Our society has changed tremendously with the many recent technological
developments that have increased the availability of knowledge. The broader the
distribution of knowledge, the more intense competitiveness it creates among the
world’s businesses and organizations (Carneiro, 2000). Besides that, improvements in
communication have encouraged leaders of organizations to implement the most
appropriate leadership to motivate their subordinates. As stated by Lowry (2004), rapid
developments and competitiveness in social life have forced leaders to compensate for
the different kinds of personalities in the workplace to increase customer-care quality.
Knowledge management or sharing is not only seen as a strategic resource by
most modern organizations, but has also been evaluated as a strategic tool designed to
reach the organizational goal (Ipe, 2003). As knowledge is a driving force for
organizational competitiveness, leadership styles may play an important role in terms of
increasing the subordinates’ knowledge sharing. According to Singh (2008), there is a
strong positive relationship between knowledge management and consulting and
delegation styles of leadership. Several studies (Lee, 2001; Verdu-Jover, 2008; Yang,
2007a) show that knowledge sharing is an important factor that increases employees’
performance in an organization. Currently, leadership style is an important factor in
augmenting the knowledge sharing culture in law enforcement agencies (Berg, Dean,
Gottschalk, & Karlsen, 2008). In addition, traditionally, “police organizations have been
2
bureaucratic, quasi-military organizations, rather than open and creative knowledge
organizations” (Gottschalk, 2007, p. 174).
Law enforcement agencies have played a vital role in our society. The increase
in crime rates since 1990 has changed public perceptions towards police organizations.
The public would like to see police be more active in preventing crime rather than
solving crime after it happens (Fitzgerald, 2000).
Police work is one of the most stressful and challenging occupations in a society.
Many factors can lead to stress. The structure of police organizations may be a source
of stress among police officers. Similar to those of the military, police organizations
have structures that give importance to strict levels of hierarchy and bureaucracy.
Orders follow top to bottom and management styles do not often change. Additionally,
police officers have limited opportunities to get promoted (Finn, 2000).
According to Burke (1989), police officers have high rates of suicide, alcoholism,
divorce, and other health problems. They have unique stress related to their job
compared to other jobs. Finn (2000) believes that police officers’ familiarity with violence
and death while they do their job is the main source of this stress. To him, since police
officers deal almost exclusively with the offenders, they may have a negative perception
towards judgment systems that give less punishment than what they believe the
criminals deserve. Additionally, their working conditions, which often require them to
spend too much time on work instead of with their family, can be another cause of
police officers’ stress. Stress does not only affect the police officers but also their
families. Thus, Finn (2000) suggests that stress reduction programs should be
implemented within police agencies in order to avoid poor productivity in policing.
3
Police officers face complex and difficult tasks and problems waiting to be solved
in the community. Besides that, police managers as organizational leaders deal not only
with difficult tasks and situations but are also responsible for increasing the performance
and effectiveness of police officers. Therefore, the leadership style of police managers
may play an important role in creating a knowledge sharing culture in the organization.
Especially, those leadership styles at the police manager level that increase knowledge
sharing among police officers can also foster an increase in their subordinates’
performance and willingness to exert extra effort. Additionally, those leadership styles
that boost the sharing of explicit and tacit knowledge may help police officers be well
prepared for the worst situations.
According to several studies (Politis, 2002; Verdu-Jover, 2008; Crawford, 2005),
transformational leadership is one of the most appropriate style in knowledge
organizations. Transformational leaders prefer to meet their subordinates’ interests
instead of their own individual interests for the sake of their organization’s goals. They
respect their subordinates’ ideas to facilitate innovation and increase their creativity
(Ribiere, 2003).
Leadership styles of police managers also have some consequences in terms of
police officers’ commitment to the organization. To illustrate the importance of the
relationship between police stress related to the organization and police commitment to
the organization, Jaramillo, Nixon, and Sams’ (2005) study, surveying police officers
working in three counties in Florida, proves that police officers whose supervisors
support them in their work have more commitment to their organization and higher
satisfaction than police officers whose supervisors do not support them.
4
Definition of Terms
Leadership
Since leadership is abroad and complex concept, there is no consensus on its
definition. According to Burns (1978), leadership is “one of the most observed and least
understood phenomena on earth” (p. 4). However, leadership can be defined as the
process of influencing task strategies, group identification, and organizational culture
(Yukl, 1989). Furthermore, Jago (1982) asserts that Leadership is “the use of no
coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of the members of an organized
group toward the accomplishment of group objectives” (p.315).
Yukl (1989) made a comprehensive leadership definition as “ influencing task
objectives and strategies, influencing commitment and compliance in task behavior to
achieve these objectives, influencing group maintenance and identification, and
influencing the culture of an organization” (p. 253). For this study, Burns` leadership
definition (1978, p. 19), which states that "leaders induc[e] followers to act for certain
goals that represent the values and the motivation--the wants and needs, the
aspirations and expectations--of both leaders and followers. And the genius of
leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see and act on their own and their
followers` values and motivations," will be employed as a guidance function.
Working Environment
The working environment of police officers refers to police officers’ stressful
workplace and its effect on their psychological well-being and physical health. As police
officers working in Riot Units are assigned to provide security in legal and illegal
5
demonstrations and riots, they interact with people who try to defend their rights to
assemble in support of a cause. However, they also struggle with criminals trying to
create conflict via illegal demonstrations. Some police units such as terror, organized
crime, and narcotics, have been faced with the threat of violence, which causes their
workplaces to be stressful. Similarly, police officers working in Riot Units have a
stressful workplace that affects their psychological well-being and physical health. As
stated by Cooper (2001), individuals’ mental and physical health is negatively affected
by high levels of stress.
Knowledge, Information, and Data
Bates (2005) provides definitions for information, knowledge, and data.
According to her definition, information is firstly “the pattern of organization of matter
and energy.” Her second definition related to information classifies it as “some pattern of
organization of matter and energy that has been given meaning by a living being.” (p.
11). She defines the term knowledge as “information given meaning and integrated with
other contents of understanding.” She identifies data as “that portion of the entire
information environment available to sensing organism that is taken in, or processed, by
that organism” (p. 13).
Bailey and Clarke (2000) also make distinctions between knowledge, data, and
information. They state that information refers to data that is put in a context. In turn,
knowledge refers to information when it is shaped as an interest area of people in a
particular time. In the other words, an appropriate interpretation of information according
to the interest area of a user in a certain situation transforms information into
6
knowledge. In addition, Bailey and Clarke (2000) assess knowledge as usable ideas.
They explain some of the important characteristics of ideas in order to enable managers
to assess them as usable ideas. First, usable ideas should be current (assessed as
important), relevant (compromising a certain interest area), and actionable (doable
within individuals’ current capability). Furthermore, Bailey and Clarke (2000) propose
that these characteristics of usable ideas are affected by the perception of each
manager relative to their position and role in the organization.
While explaining the differences between knowledge and information, Machlup
(1983) states that “information is acquired by being told, whereas knowledge can be
acquired by thinking” (p. 644). From this explanation, it is understood that knowledge is
created from our inner experience. He emphasizes that information requires transfer
while knowledge is a state. Additionally, Machlup (1983) adds that “information in the
sense of that which is being told may be the same as knowledge in the sense of that
which is known, but need not be the same” (p. 644).
Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing can be explained as “the optimizations of explicit
knowledge… achieved by the consolidation and making available of artifacts. The
optimization of tacit knowledge is achieved through the creation of communities to hold,
share, and grow the tacit knowledge” (Snowden, 1999, p. 63). With knowledge sharing,
individuals share their opinions, experiences and organizational information within their
organization. Knowledge sharing among individuals can happen in two ways: explicitly
7
and tacitly. While explicit knowledge is transmissible, tacit knowledge is more specific to
the individuals (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002).
Explicit and Tacit Knowledge
There are two types of knowledge, explicit and tacit. Koskinen (2003) gives the
definition of tacit knowledge as that which “an individual has collected while he has
performed different task and duties in different contexts and situations of his or her life”
(p. 68). In other words, tacit knowledge is held in the mind of people and is difficult to
transfer and describe. Contrary to tacit knowledge, Koskinen (2003) defined explicit
knowledge as that which “can be embodied in a code, or a language and as a
consequence it can be communicated easily” (p. 69). In other words, explicit knowledge
has a clear meaning without any ambiguity and is therefore easy to codify and store in a
database (Grayson & O'Dell, 1998).
Problem Statement
As in most of the police organizations, police Riot Units have confronted several
difficulties while providing security against collective gathering. Police officers working in
Riot Units not only have physical risks while they struggle with demonstrators, but also
face some intensive stress due to their decision of whether or not to use force while
providing security in a gathering. In this sense, sharing explicit and tacit knowledge in
Riot Units is crucial for police officers in order to be prepared for the worst situations in
both legal and illegal demonstrations and riots. Zajac and Bazerman (1991) point out
that knowledge transfer is an important tool for organization members, not only for
8
defining and reacting to the different kinds of serious environmental situations but, also
for adapting to these situations more quickly. Additionally, with knowledge transfer,
organizational members obtain more absolute information and provide better decisions
(Gnyawali, Stewart, & Grant, 1997).
At this point, the leadership styles of police managers may play a crucial role in
transferring explicit and tacit knowledge among police officers. Police managers’
leadership styles emphasizing knowledge sharing are expected to cause police officers
either to provide better security through the learning of previous mistakes or to increase
willingness to exert extra effort in legal and illegal riots and demonstrations. Among the
effective leadership styles, transformational leadership is discussed as the most
effective in increasing knowledge sharing in the organizations (Garcia-Morales, Llorens-
Montes, & Verdu-Jover, 2008). Moreover, Yang (2007a) states that knowledge sharing
increases organizational effectiveness.
Some studies (e.g., Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, & Mohammed, 2007; Lin, 2006; Zmud
& Lee, 2005) emphasize the importance of the organizational culture and climate on
subordinates’ knowledge sharing while other studies (e.g., Foos, Schum, & Rothenberg,
2006; Ipe, 2003; Lu, Leung, & Koch, 2006) investigate the impact of individual and
interpersonal factors on knowledge sharing. In addition, some scholars (e.g., Verdu-
Jover, 2008; Crawford, 2005; Politis) have examined the association between
leadership roles and organizational performance in public and private organizations.
However, the majority of leadership studies do not consider the working environment of
individuals as an important factor affecting knowledge management and sharing, which,
in turn, affects individuals’ willingness to exert extra effort. Additionally, scarce studies
9
exist examining the effect of leadership on subordinates’ knowledge sharing in law
enforcement agencies. Although several studies (e.g., Berg et al., 2008; Lin & Lee,
2004) emphasize the role of police management in knowledge sharing in a police
organization, there is no study measuring the effect of transformational, transactional,
and laissez-fair leadership styles on officers’ willingness to exert extra effort thorough
knowledge sharing among police officers working in different working environments. In
order to fill this gap in the literature, the current study will investigate police officers’
perceptions of their leaders’ leadership styles and their willingness to exert extra effort
through knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit of the Turkish National Police (TNP).
Moreover, this research is the first study investigating the impact of police officers’
perception of their leaders’ leadership styles on their willingness to exert extra effort
through knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit of TNP in Ankara, Turkey.
Importance of the Study
This study examined the effects of transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership styles on police officers’ knowledge sharing, which, in turn, affects their
willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit of TNP in Ankara. The current study has
some important consequences in terms of the literature and law enforcement agencies.
First of all, the theory of transformational leadership will be tested in Turkey,
which has a different culture than that of the West. Most of the studies measuring the
effect of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing were implemented in
countries exhibiting western cultural characteristics. As stated by Bass and Riggio
(2006, p. 100), “leaders create and reinforce norms and behaviors within the culture.”
10
Therefore, the characteristics and visions of transformational leaders may vary from
culture to culture due to the differing situational factors. Moreover, many companies
have built knowledge management tools and processes in order to create knowledge
sharing in their organizations; unfortunately, however, most of them failed due to lack of
senior manager support (McDermott & O'Dell, 2001). Therefore, this study is important
in terms of investigating the effect of the transformational leadership style on officers’
willingness to exert extra effort through knowledge sharing in an eastern culture.
Secondly, the majority of the previous studies emphasize the effect of leadership
styles on knowledge sharing in public and private organizations. However, the effect of
leadership styles on knowledge sharing in law enforcement agencies, which have
different organization types and working environments than the others, has not been
studied systematically. Consequently, the current study is important, especially for
police managers who are responsible for providing security in legal and illegal
gatherings, as the results of this study will give them an idea about which leadership
styles increase knowledge sharing, which, in turn, increase officers’ willingness to exert
extra effort to provide a better security in legal and illegal demonstrations and riots.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
In light of the literature related to leadership studies and knowledge
management, a survey questionnaire was offered to line police officers working in
different working environment in the Riot Unit of Ankara, Turkey to answer the following
questions:
RQ: 1.How do line police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ leadership styles affect officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in providing better security?
11
There are seven hypotheses tested according to Research Question 1.
RQ: 2.How do line police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ leadership styles affect officers’ knowledge sharing in providing better security?
Seven hypotheses are also tested under that research question.
RQ: 3.How does line police officers’ knowledge sharing affect their willingness to exert extra effort in providing better security?
Two hypotheses are tested under the Research Question 4.
All of the hypotheses are addressed in Chapter III.
Overview of the Chapters
This chapter briefly presents the purpose of the current study, the problem
statement, the importance of the study, and the research questions and hypotheses.
Chapter II introduces the theoretical framework of the study and provides a
comprehensive literature review related to leadership, knowledge sharing, and extra
effort. In addition, Chapter II emphasizes the studies examining the impact of leadership
and knowledge sharing on law enforcement officers’ extra effort. Chapter III describes
the research methodology, the method of analysis, the sampling plan and method, the
structure of the sampling environment, the data collection method, and the
administering of the survey questionnaire of this study. Chapter IV includes the
descriptive statistics, multivariate and mediating analyses and results. Finally, Chapter
V presents a summary of the findings and discussion thereof, this study’s limitations,
and directions for future studies. Moreover, theoretical, methodological, and
professional implications are discussed in this chapter.
12
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction to the Chapter
This chapter includes two subsections. The first subsection is related to the
concept of leadership. The second subsection is related to knowledge management and
sharing. The leadership subsection starts with the definition of leadership and outlines
the major leadership theories. The knowledge management and sharing subsection
summarizes the studies on knowledge management and knowledge sharing and
illustrates the relationship between organizational, individual, and interpersonal factors
and knowledge sharing. In addition, the association among leadership styles,
knowledge sharing, and law enforcement is examined. Finally, the impact of leadership
styles and knowledge sharing on individuals’ willingness to exert extra effort will be
presented.
Leadership
Leadership Definitions and Theories
The Leadership Definitions
There is no agreed upon definition for the concept of leadership. According to
Stogdill (1974, p. 259), “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are
persons who have attempted to define the concept.”
Generally, leadership is defined in terms of its influence on follower, task goals,
and organizational culture. Scholars have different interpretations of the definition of
leadership. For example, some scholars believe that leadership is a shared social
13
influence process that affects all members in a group whereas others assert that the
individual who has more influence in the group undertakes leadership, which is
therefore not shared with other members in the group (Yukl, 1989).
According to Burns (1978, p. 19), leadership is defined as “Leaders inducing
followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivation--the wants
and needs, the aspirations and expectations--of both leaders and followers. And the
genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see and act on their own and
their followers` values and motivations."
Scholars also have different interpretations related to the distinction between
leadership and management. According to Bennis and Nanus (1985), “managers are
people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing” (p.21).Yukl
(1989) specifies that managers emphasize the requirements, responsibilities, and
necessities defined by authority to be done while leaders underline the impact of these
requirements to others.
The General Leadership Theories
Leadership has been studied by many scholars in many different fields. In
general, scholars have different perceptions and preferences. Some leadership studies
emphasize the importance of the traits of leaders whereas others stress the importance
of behavioral factors and characteristics of the leaders (Yukl, 1989). There is no
consensus on the proper mode of categorizing leadership between these studies and
theories. This section reviews the major precedent leadership theories and studies to
understand the theoretical framework of transformational and transactional leadership.
14
Specifically, treat theory, behavioral approaches, and situational leadership theories will
be investigated in this section.
Great Man Approach
The mainstream of leadership studies in the nineteenth century was dominated
by the “great man” theory. The great man theory emphasizes leaders’ exceptional
characteristics. This theory further asserts that history is changed and shaped by
leaders who have extraordinary characteristics (Wart, 2003). A common belief that
affected many scholars in this period was that leaders are born, not made. This belief
caused many to think that the fate of leaders directs history. Besides this, the great man
theory posits that people cannot develop talents beyond those with which they were
born. “No matter how great their desire to learn, unless they possess certain
extraordinary endowments—unless they possess a talent that can be nurtured and
developed—they will not be successful in their attempts to lead” (Cawthon, 1996, p. 2).
This theory, however, received much criticism from scholars. For example,
Bennis and Nanus (1985) assert that leadership can be learned and that the belief that
leaders come in to world with extraordinary talent is not true. They pointed out that
everyone can learn the major capacities of leadership if they don’t have any disorder
related to learning. According to Cawthon (1996), proponents of the great man theory
also assert that although potential leaders may have innate talents, they will not become
a leader unless situational forces condition such a development. To support this
assertion, Cawthon (1996, p. 3) poignantly inquires, “Without chaos in the Roman
15
Catholic Church, would Lutheranism exist, today? Without Hitler, would Churchill have
continued rambling his way through life?”
Trait Theory
In the twentieth century, studies related to leadership focused more on the traits
and characteristics of leaders. Researchers investigated what kinds of traits leaders
usually have by doing personality tests (Wart, 2003). The concept of the “great man”
revealed three questions about leadership: (a) what are the major characteristics that
the leaders have? (b) Is there any possibility to predict potential great leaders by
identifying the common traits of leaders? (c) Is there any possibility to learn how
effective a leader will be? (Chamorro- Chemusik, 2007). Several studies were
implemented in order to examine these issues individually. Leadership was believed to
be the product of special capabilities and features of certain individuals (Chemers,
1997).
The trait theory is the extension of the great man theory in that it emphasizes
more the personal characteristics of the leader. Some of the leaders who significantly
influenced world history such as Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Mussolini, Churchill,
Roosevelt, and Ford, were modeled to define the traits of the leaders generally
(Gehring, 2007). What makes the trait theory different from the great man theory is that
it does not consider whether the traits of the leadership are inherited or not. They only
determine the different characteristics that distinguish leaders' from non-leaders
(Kirkpatrick, 1991).
16
The trait theory asserts that physical characteristics such as height and energy,
level of education, and socioeconomic status, along with personality traits such as
dominance, self-confidence and tolerance to stress could be used as the traits that
differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Several social scientists focused on the
characteristics of powerful personal leaders to find out what kind of traits they had apart
from followers and non-leaders. (Chamorro- Chemusik, 2007).However the results of
these studies revealed that there were two major problems with defining the traits of
leaders. First, the list of traits was too long. Second, the identified traits were not the
same in all situations (Wart, 2003).
After Stogdill, one of the most prominent scholars of trait theory,proclaimed “a
person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of
traits” (Stogdill, 1948, p. 64) , this theory lost its favour (Wart, 2003). What caused
Stogdill to make his critiques about trait theories was that no traits were universally
correlated with effective leadership and situational factors were shown tohave an
impact (Kirkpatrick, 1991).
Behavioral Approaches
Since trait theory encountered some problems in attempting to explain the major
traits of leadership, later studies headed towards investigating the behavioral contexts
that might have an impact on leaders. Behavioral theories investigated the behaviors of
effective leaders to identify which of these might serve to define leaders apart from
other individuals. Behavioral research studies are similar in some respects to those of
trait theory. The studies were generally based on the observations of individuals who
17
were organizational-level-specific supervisors rather than leaders whose responsibilities
covered a wide range, such as those leading an entire organization. This approach did
introduce the use of questionnaires measuring the subordinates` perception of their
leaders` behaviors as a major technique in identifying the behavior of leaders (House &
Aditya, 1997).
One of the earliest behavioral studies was conducted by Kurt Lewin in 1939 at
the University of Iowa. This study categorized leaders as being either autocratic,
democratic, or laissez-faire (Kest, 2006). In the autocratic leadership style, the leader
decides policy according to work tasks. The leader does not exhibit a hostile manner
toward the subordinates but maintains distance from them in order not to participate in
decision making process. When the subordinates do a good job, the autocratic leader
praises them, but if the productivity slows, he or she punishes them. On the other hand,
democratic leaders consider their subordinates in the process of determining policy.
Group discussion and leader`s technical suggestions are important to achieving any
task in this style. Members have the opportunity to participate in deciding the division
of labor. Praise and criticism of the subordinates are given according to objective
criteria. Laissez-faire leaders are different from both autocratic and democratic
leadership. Laissez faire leaders do not participate in policy determination and division
of labor. Rewards are rarely given for subordinates` well-done work (Miner, 2005).
The studies of Ohio State University and University of Michigan in the late 1940s
and early 1950s are important research studies in terms of demonstrating the impact of
leaders` behavior on group members. The Ohio State University study revealed that
leaders with high consideration and groups with initiating structure were related to high
18
performance and satisfaction. They categorized leaders as task oriented and people
oriented. Likewise, the Michigan studies classified effective managers as (a) employee
oriented, meaning that these managers considered their employees and focused on the
group relationship, and (b) production oriented, meaning that they concentrated more
on production and achievement of goals. The results of the Michigan study revealed
that higher job satisfaction and productivity were related to employee-oriented leaders
(Kest, 2006).
Behavioral approaches also examined the impact of leaders’ behavior on
followers’ motivation, performance, and satisfaction. However, situational factors
affecting leaders were blamed in this approach. Two of the major contributions of this
theory are the classification of leadership behaviors into task-oriented and person-
oriented behaviors. As a limitation, to understand the behavior of leaders, this approach
employed a research methodology observing the individuals (lower level leaders) in a
laboratory environment instead of observing leaders responsible for a large organization
(House & Aditya, 1997).
Situational and Contengiency Theories
Criticisms of trait and behavioral approaches caused a paradigm shift regarding
the importance of situational factors in the leadership process. Situation leadership
theories explain that leaders first asses their own behavior, their followers’ behavior,
and the situation in order to implement an appropriate leadership role. Leaders’
leadership styles should be compatible with the situation and culture in which they seek
to produce change (Yeakey, 2002).
19
Fiedler`s contingency theory, Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory, and
House`s path-goal theory are the major theories that can be appraised under the
situational approach (Yukl, 1989).
Fiedler`s contingency theory posits that no right or wrong leadership exists
because of the fact that the type and role of leadership may vary in different
circumstances and situations. Fiedler (1967) developed a questionnaire called the Least
Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) to measure the effectiveness of the leaders. Eighteen pairs
of different objectives motivate this questionnaire, all of which were aimed at eliciting
responses able to reveal a basic leadership style. Different situations were matched
with different leadership styles to identify those features maximally contributive to
performance. A high score in LPC refers to a high relationship motivation (Kest, 2006).
Then, Fiedler (1967) examined the leader, member, and the task under three situational
contingencies: (a) leader-member relations, (b) task structure, and (c) position power.
Leader-member relations refer to a measure of the strength of the relationship between
the manager and the employees. Members’ trust, respect, and confidence towards their
leader are related to favorable relationships. The task structure refers to whether the job
is well structured, unstructured, or somewhere in between. If it is well structured, then
the working condition is favorable and the leader influences the group appropriately.
Finally, position power refers to the authority that was given by the organization to the
managers for rewarding and punishing the subordinates. He categorized the leaders
into two groups: those who are relationship-oriented and those who are task-oriented.
A high LPC score indicates that leaders have good interpersonal relations while a low
score indicates that they concentrate more on the task at hand.
20
Hersey and Blanchard`s situational theory first emerged as the life cycle theory of
leadership later, in the mid-1970s, the theory was renamed situational leadership theory
(Hersey &Blanchard, 1977). Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2004) suggest that
leadership training is necessary for leaders to learn to adapt to different situations. They
have an opinion parallel to that of the theoretical proposition of the Ohio State study –
namely, “the behavior of the leader could be described as a mix of both dimensions”
(Hersey et al., 2004, p. 93). Hersey and Blanchard (1969) asserted that leaders need to
demonstrate different kinds of leadership styles.
One of the dimensions of situational leadership theory is task- behavior and
relationship-behavior, parallel to the Ohio State study’s initiating structure and
consideration leadership style. Task-behavior refers to the leaders who direct the
followers` activities and the subordinates who get information about the structures of the
task. Relationship-behavior refers to the leaders who support the subordinates when
they need it and emphasize the relationship between subordinates with providing open
communication (Hersey & Blanchard, 1974).
Four leadership styles were developed in the theory
• Telling (high task-low relationship: Roles and different tasks are defined by the leader. That leadership is applicable to new employees as they need help at the beginning of the job.
• Selling (high task-high relationship): The leader directs and supports the subordinates to develop their capabilities.
• Participating (low task-high relationship): Both the leader and subordinates are in the process of decision making
• Delegating (low task-low relationship): Little support is given by the leader as the subordinate demonstrates the highest level of maturity (Hersey et al., 2004)
21
Hersey et al. (2004) argues that leaders` leadership styles change according to
the maturity level of the followers. The relationship may change from the telling, selling,
and participating, through to the delegating leadership style according to the followers`
lowest level of maturity to highest level.
Another situational theory developed by Robert House (1971) is called the path-
goal theory. This theory posits that a relationship exists between leaders` behavior and
followers` performance. In other words, followers` performance is affected by the
behavior of the leaders (House, 1971). Four leadership styles are defined under this
theory; directive leader, supportive leader, participation leader, and achievement
oriented leader. Directive leaders refer to the leaders who explain work expectation
clearly to the subordinates so that they know what to do. A special guidance is given by
the leader. Supportive leaders refer to the leaders who support and care the needs of
their subordinates. Participation leaders refer to the leaders who consider their
subordinates` opinions in the process of decision making as it is assumed that their
abilities are high. Achievement-oriented leaders refer to the leaders who set challenging
goals for their followers to accomplish as it is assumed that their followers will do their
best. For all that the followers know, they will be rewarded after the work is done. This
theory asserts that leaders are flexible in terms of adapting to different kinds of
situations and that they will exert an appropriate leadership style according to the
requirement of the situation (Kest, 2006).
The Theory of Transformational Leadership
Beginning in the 1970s, the majority of the research studies related to leadership
22
highlighted the transactional leadership theory (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). After Burns’
(1978) leadership book explaining that transactional leadership have always been
studied but transformational leadership is being blamed, most of the studies
emphasized toward to transformational leadership (Wart, 2003). Burns (1978)
examined the transformational and transactional leadership styles. He separated these
two styles in terms of carrying different responsibilities. According to Burns (1978),
transformational leadership happens when people take part in the leadership process
and engage with others in such a way that each of them can elevate each other to a
higher level of motivation. On the other hand, transactional leaders interact with people
to exchange valuable resources, such as rewards. In other words, the main purpose for
engaging with each other is to exchange information and receive rewards or
punishments based on the quality of that information. This contract between
transactional leaders and others can only be maintained until the contract ends.
Transactional leaders use power to gain benefits. Parallel to this, followers fulfill the
requirement of the work until there is a harmony between the rewards they receive and
their needs (Flood, Hannan, Smith, Turner, West & Dawson, 2000).
When Burns (1978) gives the definition of leadership, he asserts that leaders
encourage followers to perform certain tasks and provide the necessary motivation to
meet their needs and those of their followers. Additionally, he adds that leaders, in order
to foster effective relationships with their followers, should consider meeting their
followers’ expectations by giving them motivation. Moreover, Burns (1978) asserts that
"leaders can also shape and alter and elevate the motives and values and goals of
followers through the vital teaching role of leadership" (p. 425).
23
Burns’ (1978) theory was expanded by Bass (1985) who states that a leader may
represent both transformational and transactional characters at the same time.
Furthermore, he points out that both transformational and transactional leadership
styles do not take place at the different ends of the same part. According to Bass
(1985), in transformational leadership style, leaders encourage followers to focus on
organizational and team goals. Additionally, they seek ways to satisfy their followers’
higher-order needs. To Bass (1985), while transformational leadership presents
intellectual inspiration and individual reflection, transactional leadership does not.
Bass and Avolio (1994) divided transformational leadership into 4 categories:
(a) Idealized influence: Leaders show admiration for their followers in order to
use this credit to meet their and their followers’ needs. Since they have moral values,
they do not use their power for personal gain.
(b) Inspirational motivation: Leaders emphasize the motivation of their followers
to achieve the team’s and the organization’s shared goals. They always seek ways to
inject passion into their followers.
(c) Intellectual stimulation: Leaders are respectful of their followers’ ideas and
opinions. Additionally, they encourage their followers to use their ideas and opinions in
order to be innovative.
(d) Individualized consideration: Leaders pay special attention to their followers’
individual needs. They evaluate their followers not only as employees but also as
individuals whose expectations and opinions should be respected.
Charismatic leadership takes prominence as the center process of transformation
leadership. The trust and confidence toward to leader is so high that the followers have
24
admiration and good feelings about their leaders` vision (Bass, Avolio, &Bebb, 1987).
According to Bryan (1992) charismatic leadership, proposed originally by House (1977),
is seen as being synonymous with transformational leadership; however, charismatic
leadership is a component of transformational leadership (idealized influence) (Bryman,
1992).
Bodla and Nawas (2010) states that one of the components of transformational
leadership, that is, idealized influence, has two aspects; Idealized Influence (attributed),
Idealized Influence (behavioral). Transformational leaders` behavioral characteristics
are appropriate for them to be a model for the people they lead. Since they have
respect and trust, they are an excellent example for their subordinates to be emulated.
Besides that, transformational leaders are believed to have extra capabilities and
special personalities. Likewise, transformational leaders prefer dealing rather than
arbitrating. They can take risk whenever required and present a high level of moral
behaviors.
Transformational leaders focus on longer term goals instead of short term goals.
They set the goals and give importance to the vision. They inspire followers to track the
vision. If a change is required for the vision to be accomplished, they change the system
instead of insisting on the existing systems. Moreover, transformational leaders
encourage their followers to take more responsibility both for their and others`
development (Howell & Avolio, 1993).
Bass, Avolio, and Bebb (1987) point out that transformational leaders respect
their subordinates` beliefs and values with intellectual stimulation. In this way, leaders
encourage their subordinates to think in new ways in the process of solving problems.
25
With their leaders` intellectual stimulation, followers develop their capabilities to solve
future problems.
Inspirational motivation is an important component of transformational
leadership. Transformational leaders with inspirational motivation inspire and motivate
their subordinates in terms of committing them to the vision of the organization. Besides
that, they also support the team spirit (Avolio, 1999). Bass (1996) asserts that
“transformational leaders behave in ways that motivate and inspire those around them
by providing meaning and challenge to their followers` work" (p. 9). In other words,
leaders create enthusiasm and optimism. Followers are involved in the process of
transforming the organization`s future. With the enthusiasm created by the leaders,
followers are inspired to commit to the organization’s goals and shared visions.
Individualized consideration is another important component in transformational
leadership. Individualized consideration refers to leaders who concern themselves with
their subordinates as individuals and take part in the developmental process of their
subordinates. They also consider their follower`s needs, actions, and aspirations as a
mentor or coach. These leaders also respect and celebrate their followers` contributions
to the team (Bass & Bass, 2008).
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership emerges if the leader implements rewards or discipline
to the followers according to their level of performance (Avolio & Bass, 2002).
Transactional leadership has three major components: contingent reward,
management by exception (active), and management-by-exception (passive).
26
Contingent reward refers to the leaders who provide material or psychological rewards
to their followers for obeying the rules and fulfilling task requirements. Management-by-
exception (active) refers to the leaders who observe their subordinates’ wrong actions,
those opposite the rules and standards of the organization or project, in order to correct
their actions. Management-by-exception (passive) refers to leaders who only intervene
and take action when subordinates fail to fulfill the required rules and objectives
(Goldstein, 1990).
Leaders using the contingent reward method make an agreement with the
follower, promising them a reward if they do their assignment in a satisfactory way
(Avolio & Bass, 2002).
According to Bass (1985), in the relationship between a transactional leader and
his or her followers, the latter believe the former (a) "recognizes what it is we want to get
from our work and tries to see that we get what we want if our performance warrants it;
(b) exchanges rewards and promises of reward for our effort; and (c) is responsive to
our immediate self-interests if they can be met by our getting the work done" (p. 11).
Another of the components of transactional leadership is management by
exception. Though this is not a very effective method, it is used in some certain
situations. In active management, the leader monitors the subordinates, keeping track
of whether they keep to the standards and do the correct things in the process of
completing their assignments. If needed, the leader takes action to correct the mistake.
No action is taken unless the subordinates make a mistake or error in their
assignments. Required correction is taken after a subordinate’s mistake (Avolio & Bass,
2002).
27
Laissez-fair Leadership
Laissez-fair leadership is a kind of passive leadership as compared to the more
active transactional and transformational leadership (Bass, 1999). Laissez-fair leaders
do not want to engage in the organization’s matters. They want employees to solve
problems themselves. Since they are not engaged in decision-making processes all day
long, some delays may occur in the decision-making process. Additionally, they do not
constantly struggle to provide for their employees’ needs and demands. Moreover, the
feedback of employees does not encourage them to take action (Bass & Avalio, 1990).
The laissez-faire leaders` behavior is different from that of the other types of
leaders in that they " do not care what happens, avoid taking responsibility, cannot
make up their minds, and are satisfied to sit and wait for others to take the necessary
initiatives imposed by the tasks at hand" (Avolio & Bass, 2002, p. 67).
Leadership Styles and Extra Effort
Schaubroeck, Lam, and Cha (2007) examine the association between
transformation leadership behavior and group performance. The sample comprised 218
financial services teams which had branches both in Hong Kong and the United States.
The researchers used team potency, team members’ general opinions about the
capability of their team, as a mediation effect to measure the effect of transformational
leadership on team performance. The results revealed that transformational leadership
has a positive effect on team performance through team potency.
Whittington, Goodwin, and Murray (2004) investigated the effect of
transformational leadership on subordinates’ performance, organizational commitment,
28
and organizational citizenship behavior through job enrichment and goal difficulty. This
research involved a field study in 12 different organizations. The sample consisted of
209 leaders and followers. The researchers concluded that both transformational
leadership and job enrichment have significant major effects. Moreover, the results
proved that the mediating variable of job enrichment changed the effect of
transformational leadership on affective commitment, while goal difficulty increased the
association between transformational leadership and subordinates’ performance and
effective commitment
Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2007) investigated the impact of the perceived
expectations of the leader, customers, and family on self-expectations for creativity,
and, in turn, individuals’ creative involvement at work. A survey was sent to randomly
selected employees working in two different service organizations in Israel for this
study. Among the total155 questionnaires, 140 participants’ responses were accepted
as usable data. The results show that employees who have a higher level of creative
self-efficacy, meaning individuals’ beliefs about accomplishing a required action for
desired results in different circumstances, and self-expectations for creative behavior at
work are more likely to participate in creative work as compared to those employees
who have low creative self-efficacy. In addition, the results of this study prove that
leaders’ expectations for creativity affect positively and strongly both individuals’ self-
expectations for creativity and individual’s involvement in creative work.
Schyns, Kroon, and Moors (2007) emphasize the perception of leader-member
exchange (LMX). They propose that perceived quality of this relationship is related to
followers’ expectancies and preferences. In addition, they also investigate what kind of
29
characteristics of followers impact their perception of LMX. A survey instrument was
employed to the sample of 588 Dutch employees working in different fields. The
questionnaire intended to measure followers’ perception of romance of leadership,
idealized supervisor, need for leadership, dependence and perception of LMX. The
researchers conclude that followers’ perceptions about the need for leadership and
dependence, meaning that employees expect their leaders to facilitate the process of
accomplishing the goal, are positively related to their perception of LMX.
Hirst, Dick, and Knippenberg (2009) emphasize the associations among team
identification, leader inspirational motivation, employee creative performance and
employee creativity. They define creative performance as employees’ new solutions to
the problems which emerge in the process of reaching work goals; creative effort is
defined as the pro-active learning of useful ideas in the process of facing a problem to
increase individual’s creative performance. The data was collected from 115 matched
pairs of employee-leader ratings in a large multi-national pharmaceutical company. The
study concludes that a leader’s inspirational motivation increases the relationship
between creative effort and identification. In addition, creative effort positively and
indirectly mediates the relationship between team identification and employees’ creative
performance.
Levy, Cober, and Miller (2002) examine the relationship between feedback-
seeking behavior and certain leadership styles, including transformational and
transactional leadership. They defined feedback as enabling employees to obtain
information about their skills and performance and how others evaluate them. A vignette
describing both a transformational and a transactional leader was presented to 132
30
participants. The results reveal that transformational leadership style is positively
associated with employees’ higher feedback-seeking intentions.
Toor and Ofori (2009) investigated the association between ethical leadership
and the full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture.
They employed the survey method, distributing a questionnaire to senior executives and
senior level managers in Singapore. The study measured the ethical leadership of the
participants, determining whether these leaders had the characteristics of
transformational, transactional, and laissez fair leadership. In addition, organizational
culture was also measured by a survey questionnaire in this study. The results prove
that ethical leadership is positively associated with the all components of
transformational leadership. In other word, the results of this study reveal that
transformational leaders have almost the same behaviors and characteristics of ethical
leadership that demonstrably constitute a good example for subordinates to follow.
Sparks and Schenk (2001) conducted both qualitative and quantitative method to
examine the importance of transformation leadership. The participants were 736 female
members from various multilevel marketing organizations (MLMs). The study
emphasizes the impact of the transformational leadership between organization
sponsors and organization members. The survey instruments measured
transformational leadership behaviors, belief in a higher work purpose, job satisfaction,
unit cohesion, and effort and performance of the members. The results reveal that
transformational leadership has a positive impact on the relationship between the higher
purpose of one’s work and job satisfaction, unit cohesion, and effort.
31
Law Enforcement and Leadership
Adebayo (2004) investigates the effect of perceived workplace fairness and
transformational leadership on police work motivation in Nigerian police. A cross-
sectional survey was given to 184 participants according to their rank in the Nigeria
Police force. The study revealed that participants are more motivated when their
perceived workplace fairness is high. Besides this, participants who believe that their
superior officers exhibit transformational leadership behavior are more motivated
compared to participants who report that their superior officers are low in exhibiting
transformational leadership behavior.
Murphy and Drodge (2003) conducted an interview to examine the impact of
transformational leadership in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
detachment. They interviewed 28 police officers in the RCMP and concluded that
transformational leaders are effective in term of increasing levels of commitment, work
satisfaction, and motivation among police officers.
Brunetto and Farr-Wharton (2005) investigate the effect of management
practices, organization culture, resources, and accountability on the accomplishment of
a policy in the Australian state police department. They employed both qualitative and
quantitative research methods. This study throws attention to the consistency between
the ascertained goals and beliefs, the resources and accountability in the process of
implementing a new policy to be successful. The results reveal that the coherency
between senior and lower managers plays a vital role in establishing goals and
objectives of a new policy. In addition, this study proposes that if there is an
inconsistency between written policy and other factors that are important in the process
32
of implementing the policy, first-level managers can use this condition to maintain their
status quo as they have the power. Finally, this study suggests that the training related
to changing the ascertained values should first be given to the senior management in
order to establish a successful policy.
Densten (2003) examines the top level police officers’ leadership style in the
Australian Police organization. The researcher studied stratified system theory, positing
that task complexity affects the performance demand in any organization. According to
the results the leader effectiveness and ability to motivate subordinates to exert extra
effort changes according to the perception of each rank of senior officer. In other words,
the perception of each senior officer’s leadership effectiveness and exerting extra effort
shows some differences according to different ranks. Densten (2003) concludes that
predictors of senior officers’ leadership changes depending on their rank. Secondly, the
study revealed that leader effectiveness is related to followers being pleased with their
leaders’ leadership behaviors.
Knowledge Management and KnowledgeSharing
Overview of Knowledge Management
The definition of knowledge management (KM) varies according to scholars and
practitioners in different fields and areas of interest. In other words, different scholars in
different fields define knowledge management with regard to their special perspectives
and preferences. To illustrate the differences between these, Chen (2004)points out that
the scholars accepting management theory orientation refer to knowledge as a process
that causes competition among individuals and organizations. On the other hand,
33
scholars with in the management information system consider knowledge as an object
that can be observed and managed in information systems based on computers.
Bailey and Clarke (2000) define KM as “How managers can generate,
communicate, and exploit knowledge (usable ideas) for personal and organizational
benefit” (p. 237).From a different viewpoint, O’Dell and Grayson (1998) define KM as “a
conscious strategy of getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right time
and helping people share and put information into action in ways that strive to improve
organizational performance” (p. 6).
According to Srikantaiah and Koenig (2000, p. 3), knowledge management is “a
discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, capturing, evaluation,
retrieving, and sharing all of an enterprise’s information assets. These assets may
include databases, documents, policies, procedures, and previously uncaptured
expertise and experience of individual works.”
Grover and Davenport (2001) categorized knowledge management into three
subtypes: knowledge generation, knowledge codification, and knowledge transfer. First,
knowledge generation refers to the development of knowledge including knowledge
acquisition. Second, knowledge codification structures knowledge as applicable and
accessible. Finally, knowledge transfer explains the process of implementation of
knowledge, from generation and codification to use.
Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing constitutes the most important part of KM. The aim of sharing
employees’ knowledge is to transfer their values into the organization recourses
34
(Dawson, 2000). Knowledge sharing between individuals is explained by Ipe (2003) as
"the process by which knowledge held by an individual is converted into a form that can
be understood, absorbed, and used by other individuals" (p. 341). The term sharing
refers to individuals who present their knowledge in a form that can be used by others in
the organization. In addition, sharing includes a conscious action on the part of the
individual which does not involve the intention of taking ownership of the knowledge;
instead ownership of the knowledge belongs to both sender and recipient (Ipe,
2003).Knowledge sharing not only boosts individuals’ competency but also causes them
to produce new knowledge (Sveiby, 2001).
Wah (2000) asserts that individuals who hoard knowledge generate a huge
impediment in the process of KM. On the other hand, Goh (2002) explains that if
economic competition exists in an organization, knowledge is equated with power, and it
is natural that people should hoard knowledge.
As in the study of Lu, Leung, and Koch (2006), the factors that impact knowledge
sharing will be categorized and investigated in this study along three subcategories:
organizational, individual, and interpersonal factors.
Organization Culture and Knowledge Sharing
Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, and Mohammed (2007) focus on the impact of factors
caused by organizational culture on knowledge sharing among employees. Generally,
the study examines the association between knowledge sharing and the effect of
employees’ interpersonal trust, the quality of communication, the organizations’
information system, the reward system, and the organization’s structure and knowledge
35
sharing in an organization. The researchers used both survey methods and interviews
in investigating staff working in different public and private organizations in Bahrain. The
results revealed that trust, communication, information systems, rewards, and
organization structure have positive associations with knowledge sharing in
organizations.
McDermott and O’Dell (2001) investigate the cultural barriers against knowledge
sharing, through the lens of cultural values such as visible and invisible dimensions.
They claim that people in organizations that have a knowledge sharing culture believe
that sharing knowledge is a natural thing instead of considering it as something to be
forced. In addition, the study revealed that both subordinates’ expectations and
managers’ considerations should be met by the organization’s core values. Finally,
McDermott and O’Dell (2001) suggest that managers should be used effectively to
encourage knowledge sharing among subordinates.
Yang (2007b) examines the impact of organizational culture and different types
of leadership roles on knowledge sharing. Yang (2007b) employed both a pilot test and
a cross-sectional study of quantitative data. Moreover, the author prepared the survey
questionnaire by taking feedback and interviewing the participants about the results of
the pilot test. The sample employees, those who had been working in the organization
for more than six months, were drawn from nine international tourist hotels. A total of
1200 survey questionnaires were sent to the participants, and 499 of them were
selected as usable replies. The results show that facilitating and mentoring roles are the
most appropriate roles for a leader in building knowledge sharing systems in the
organization. The study also reveals that the environment of individuals’ working groups
36
is so important to the creation of an organization culture that causes collaboration in
knowledge sharing.
Lin (2006) investigates how organizational support affects the facilitation of
knowledge sharing in an organization in terms of individuals’ perception of innovation
characteristics about their organization. This study examines individuals’ perceived
relative advantage and compatibility as their innovation characteristics. This study also
develops a model by following the philosophy of innovation diffusion theory. The
researcher employed quantitative data by sending a survey questionnaire to the senior
executives in large Taiwanese organizations. 154 respondents replied to the survey
questionnaire among 720 senior executives. The results revealed that organizational
support has a statistically positive impact on the organizational intention to facilitate
knowledge sharing.
Yang (2007a) measures the impact of knowledge sharing and organizational
learning on organizational effectiveness. Yang employed quantitative data by sending
questionnaires to 1200 employees working in different positions in international tourist
hotels in Taiwan. This study concludes that knowledge sharing has an impact on
organizational learning, which in turn increases organizational effectiveness.
Zmud and Lee (2005) investigate the impact of external motivators,
organizational climate, and social-psychological forces on individuals’ intention about
knowledge sharing. Zmud and Lee (2005) follow the theory of reason action (TRA) for
this research study. The researchers conducted interviews and reviewed literature to
define the variables for the external motivators. Consequently, economics, covering
rewards and promotion, and social psychology, covering reciprocal relationships and
37
sense of self-worth, were identified as external motivators. Besides this, fairness,
affiliation, and innovativeness were identified as organizational climate variables. The
researchers conducted a self-administrated field survey of 154 managers working in 27
Korean organizations. The results reveal that external motivators, organizational
climate, and social-psychological forces have an impact on individuals’ intentions about
knowledge sharing.
Individual and Interpersonal Factors and Knowledge Sharing
Foos, Schum, and Rothenberg (2006) investigate the factors that have an impact
on transferring tacit knowledge between two partners. The study employed both
qualitative and quantitative data. Foos et al. (2006) collected qualitative data by
interviewing thirteen individuals from three different companies in the US. Quantitative
data was collected by conducting an online survey for project and product managers
who were involved with 39 projects that used external technology in five different
companies. The authors conclude that trust, early involvement, and due diligence have
an impact on a person’s expectations about the activeness of technology transfer and
tacit knowledge transfer.
Gray and Meister (2004) searched for the benefits of accessing others’
knowledge and determined in which circumstances individuals tend to reach each
other’s experiences, views, and approaches. The model of knowledge sharing was used
to test the hypotheses for this research. The researchers employed a cross-sectional
survey instrument. Gray and Meister (2004) conducted a pretest and pilot study before
sending a questionnaire to1009 employees by mail. A total of 313 cases were accepted
38
as usable data for this research. The authors concluded that individuals’ level of
knowledge sourcing behavior changes depending on their perceived work demand and
their willingness to develop their skills and abilities.
Ipe (2003) investigated how knowledge sharing happens between individuals in
an organization. The author develops a model of knowledge sharing to explain some
factors that have an impact on individuals’ knowledge sharing in the organization. He
analyzes the literature related to knowledge management and sharing in organizations
to create a framework to define that dominant factors affecting individuals’ knowledge
sharing. This study drew out four factors having a crucial impact on knowledge sharing
between individuals.; “the nature of knowledge,” that is whether the knowledge is tacit or
explicit and valuable, “motivation to share,” that is whether knowledge is used as a
power, reciprocity,” that is the opportunities to share knowledge,” and “the culture of the
work environment.”
Knowledge sharing was examined in terms of the impact of individual,
interpersonal, and organizational factors by the study of Lu, Leung, and Koch (2006).
The research had two studies. Study 2 was replicated from Study 1 by adding the effect
of organizational support on knowledge sharing. Lu et al., (2006) employed quantitative
data by conducting a survey in China. Both MBA part-time students and mid-level
employees from five firms were selected as participants for this study. The results
reveal that greed has a negative impact on knowledge sharing, whereas self-efficacy
has a positive impact. In addition, organizational support increases knowledge sharing
by enabling organizations to use more information technologies for explicit knowledge.
39
Moreover, co-worker collegiality was found to have an indirect positive effect on
knowledge sharing.
Lin and Lee (2004) investigate the factors that have an impact on senior
managers’ behaviors to encourage the intention of knowledge sharing. The researchers
followed the theory of planned behavior to develop a research model. The authors sent
the survey questions to 720 randomly selected senior managers of organizations
among 2000 firms in Taiwan. A total of 154 participants’ responses were assessed as
acceptable. The researchers conclude that there is a strong relationship between the
intentions of senior managers’ encouragement about knowledge sharing and their
overall knowledge sharing behaviors. The results also reveal that senior managers’
attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control towards knowledge
sharing are associated with their intentions to encourage knowledge sharing.
Connelly and Kelloway (2003) examine the encouraging and discouraging factors
of knowledge management and sharing in an organization. The authors specifically
emphasize the relationship between the employees’ perception of their management
support for knowledge sharing, the social interaction of their organizations, their
organization’s knowledge sharing technologies, demographic variables of the
employees, and employees’ perception of knowledge sharing culture. The researchers
conducted a survey in Canada. The participants of the study included both students and
non-students. The researchers conclude that both employees’ perceptions of
management’s support for knowledge sharing and positive social interaction are positive
indicators of their perception of knowledge sharing culture.
40
Ipe (2004) points out the importance of knowledge sharing. He examines the
factors that motivate or hinder knowledge sharing in an organization. The study
identified four motivators for knowledge sharing. These are “a feeling of being valued,”
“informal relationships with team members,” “commitment to the project” and “sharing
climate within the team.” In addition, this study defines five impediments on the issue of
knowledge management. These are “lack of shared contexts,” “tacit nature of
knowledge,” “dependence on individuals’ abilities to manage the sharing process,” “cost
of sharing” and “project setup process and structure.” Ipe (2004) conducted this case
study in an information technology services company. The results reveal that
individuals’ willingness to share knowledge increased when other team members
presented them as a contributor to the organization.
Law Enforcement and Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge management plays a crucial role in policing as it deals with the
process of creating, sharing, and keeping the knowledge. Knowledge has a different
meaning in policing due to the different perspectives between the theoretical knowledge
view and street-level knowledge view. The theoretical perspective is associated with
people who have academic education and work in high level positions in organizations.
Their main sources of knowledge are IT systems and different types of reports
(Holgersson, Gottschalk,& Dean, 2008). Additionally, high ranking officers are not
confronted with face-to-face problems as street level officers are (Reeuss-lanni, 1993).
These differences affect the knowledge exchange between theoretical and street level
perspectives negatively. At this point, Holgersson et al. (2008) suggests that the opinion
41
and value of street-level officers should be thoroughly integrated into the organization to
create an effective knowledge sharing environment.
The study of Berg, Dean, Gottschalk, and Karlsen (2008) examined the effect of
management roles on knowledge sharing in police investigations. Six management
roles were defined as independent variables in this research. The researchers
conducted a survey measuring the management roles and knowledge sharing attitudes
of police officers. The sample was drawn from police officers dealing with criminal
investigations in Norway. The researchers concluded that among the six management
roles, only the networking role, meaning the managers involved in personnel,
organizational, and financial matters to gain their subordinates’ acceptance, have a
stronger impact on knowledge sharing in police organizations.
Glomseth, Gottschalk, and Sæther (2007) performed an empirical study related
to performance in the police investigation unit. They directed a survey instrument to
senior investigations police officers working in charge of criminal investigations in
Norway. The study measured the impact of occupational culture on the performance of
the police investigation unit through knowledge sharing. Occupational culture was
divided in to four subsections: team culture, planning culture, theoretical culture, and
traditional culture. The results prove that only team culture has a significant impact on
both knowledge sharing and performance in the police investigation unit.
The Relationship between Leadership Styles and Knowledge Sharing
Bryant (2003) states that knowledge management is based on three major
components: creating knowledge, sharing knowledge, and exploiting knowledge. Bryant
42
(2003) proposes that leaders an important impact on the process of these three major
components. This is because leaders play the central role to create a knowledge
sharing climate that respects others’ ideas in the organizations.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) investigate firms’ knowledge creation, including
tacit and explicit knowledge, within four categories: socialization, externalization,
internalization, and combination. Socialization refers to the experiences that are shared
among others. Externalization refers to tacit knowledge being transferred to explicit
knowledge. Internalization refers to explicit knowledge that is transferred to tacit
knowledge. For example, individuals obtain experiences from others and then make
them internal. The last one, combination, refers to explicit knowledge that represents an
amalgam of input from different knowledge sources.
According to Bollinger and Smith (2001), leaders should concentrate on three
major issues. First, leaders should create a culture that values knowledge, knowledge
sharing, and encourage its people to be reliable to their organizations. Second, leaders
should focus on their line supervisors, especially their training, and give enough
delegation for them to reach a desired culture. Third, leaders should create an
appropriate knowledge structure system that supports knowledge sharing.
Schyns and Sanders (2007) investigate the relationship between the personality
of followers and their perception of transformational leadership. The study deployed
emotionality, extraversion, openness for experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and honesty as personality factors to measure the characteristics of followers. Followers
from three different companies and students from a Dutch university were selected as
participants for the study. Schyns and Sanders employed a multifactor leadership
43
questionnaire (MLQ) to collect data. The results reveal that followers’ having similar
characteristics with transformational leaders positively impacts their perceptions about
transformational leadership.
The leaders’ effort to meet the needs of followers can be explained by Maslow’s
(1948) hierarchy of needs theory. Maslow (1943) arranged the needs of individuals into
5 categories. The first need is physiological, such as air and water to live. The second
need is safety, such as safety from murder and assault. The third need is belongingness
and love, such as family and friends. The fourth is esteem, where a person is valued for
having his or her own status and confidence. The fifth need is self-actualization.
According to Maslow, individuals can be motivated to reach higher-level needs before
satisfying these previous needs.
According to Gartner research, there are three kinds of knowledge workers. The
first is the task-based knowledge worker, such as a waiter. The second is the skill-
based knowledge worker, such as a programmer. The last one is the innovation-
focused knowledge worker, such as a composer. Thus, management structure should
be designed to motive different kinds of knowledge workers (Morello& Caldwell, 2001).
Pauleen and Mason (as cited in Ribiere & Sitar, 2003) conducted a survey to
figure out the biggest barriers hindering the successful implementation of knowledge
management among 46 public and private KM practitioners in New Zealand. The results
reveal that organizational culture with 45% of the respondents and leadership with 22%
of the respondents are major barriers toward to the successful implementation of KM.
However, technology was not found as a main barrier toward to implementation of
knowledge management. At this point Davenport and Prusak (1998) point out that
44
investing much of time, money and effort on the technology does not solve the
knowledge problem in an organization. Other factors besides investment in technology,
such as organizational culture and management, should be considered in order
successfully to implement knowledge management.
According to Ribiere and Star (2003), organization culture plays a crucial role in
increasing knowledge sharing in the organization. In the same way, leadership plays a
critical role in shifting organization culture towards knowledge and learning. In addition,
Ribiere and Star (2003) point out that since leaders have motivation, belief, and values,
they build their organization structure based on these components. Moreover, they
recruit people compatible to the organization’s culture and values.
Leading knowledge workers in a knowledge organization relays on persuasion,
interactive dialogue, and intellectual values. Leaders should have the ability to build
reliance and engagement. From the perception of knowledge workers, leaders maintain
knowledge and learning motion. They also reward their co-workers’ engagement with
knowledge and learning activities (Burtha, 2001).
Nowadays, leaders are aware of the fact that they are no longer the major source
of knowledge. In addition, they realize that knowledge workers play a crucial role in
terms of their providing a knowledge source. Thus, leaders encourage their
subordinates to participate in knowledge sharing (Bukowitz, & Williams, 1999).
García-Morales, Lloréns-Montes, and Verdú-Jover (2007) examine the
association among leadership roles and knowledge, innovation and the impact of
transformational leadership on organization performance. After reviewing the literature,
the researcher developed a theoretical model, which analyzes the associations
45
theoretically and empirically. The researchers directed a survey to chief executive
officer (CEOs) among 900 organizations in Spain. They got 408 valid respondents. The
results revealed that transformation leadership has a positive impact on slack
knowledge, absorptive capacity, tacit knowledge, organizational learning, and
innovation.
The relationship among transformational leadership, organizational position, and
knowledge management was studied by Crawford (2005). The author followed the
theory of transformational leadership. The author conducted a survey of 1046 students
registered in classes in a graduate liberal studies degree program. He utilized the
Knowledge Management Inventory (KMI) and the multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
5-S (MLQ). The study concluded that there was a strong association between
transformational leadership and knowledge management behaviors. Moreover,
organization position was found to be an important factor in knowledge management.
The study of Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, and Liu (2008) investigated the association
between transformational and change leadership and followers’ commitment to
particular change in an organization. The authors distinguished the differences between
transformational and change leadership with a strong definition. Data were collected
from 343 employees working in 30 different organizations in United States. The sample
covered 30 different organizations. Two surveys, the Organizational Change survey and
the Personal Change survey were employed in this study. The results reveal that
transformational leadership is associated with change commitment when followers
evaluate change leadership as low. However, when change leadership is reported as
46
high and job impact is low, transformation leadership is not related to change
commitment.
Loke (2001) studied the effectiveness of leadership behaviors on job satisfaction,
productivity and organizational commitment. The researcher directed a survey to
registered nurses in an acute hospital in Singapore. The study revealed that 29% of the
job satisfaction of nurses is related to leadership behaviors.
Pan and Scarbrough (1999) examine the knowledge sharing process of an
international organization, Buckman Laboratories. They investigated the relationship
between knowledge management and organizational context. They evaluated the
knowledge management subject in light of the socio-technical perspective. The study
focused on several factors related to the socio-technical perspective in knowledge
management. The first one was the relationship between social and informational
technologies. Second was the employee’s compatibility with explicit and tacit
knowledge. Third was the consistency of social and information technologies. The
authors conducted an empirical study including observations and interviews. They
concluded that when shared vision was provided in an organization, people were
motivated by its power. Moreover, the study also showed the importance of having
shared vision in terms of impact on knowledge sharing in the organization.
Politis (2002) examined the impact of transformational and transactional
leadership styles on knowledge acquisition and organization performance. The
researcher employed quantitative data by conducting a survey with 280 self-managing
employees. The sample was drawn from self-managing teams working in a large, high-
technology manufacturing organization in Australia. A total of 239 participants
47
responded to the survey. The study concluded that transformational leadership has a
statistically positive effect on the knowledge acquisition of the employees. However, the
relationship between knowledge acquisition and performance was negative.
Srivastava, Bartol, and Locke (2006) examined the association between
empowerment leadership, meaning leaders’ sharing their power by giving more
responsibility to their employees, and team performance. The study also investigated
the effect of empowerment leadership on knowledge sharing. The researchers gave the
survey to 550 management team managers working in a chain of medium size hotels. A
total of 498 participants responded to the survey. They concluded that empowerment
leadership has a positive impact on knowledge sharing. Moreover, the results revealed
that empowerment leadership also has an indirect effect on team efficacy.
Summary
This chapter reviewed literature about leadership, knowledge management and
sharing, and their effects on individuals’ willingness to exert extra effort. The previous
research studies done in the vein of the present study revealed that leadership plays a
crucial role in an organization. In addition, the effect of transformational, transactional,
and laissez-fair leadership either on individuals’ knowledge sharing or on individuals’
willingness to exert extra effort was systematically examined. The following chapter
examines the research design and the methodology.
48
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study will investigate the relationship between police officers’ perceptions of
their leaders’ leadership styles and their impact on police officers’ willingness to exert
extra effort through knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit of the Turkish National Police
(TNP) in Ankara, Turkey. The majority of leadership studies deal with the leadership
effectiveness and its effect on knowledge management. However, the working
environments of individuals (especially those working, in police organizations) are not
considered to be important factors affecting knowledge management and sharing, and,
in turn, individuals’ willingness to exert extra effort. Considering the different working
environments of individuals, this research employs a quantitative survey design to
understand officers’ perceptions about their leaders’ leadership styles and their effect on
officers’ willingness to exert extra effort. A mail-in survey method is used for this study
to guarantee the anonymity of participants. Furthermore, this research was designed as
a cross-sectional survey as the data will be collected in the same time (Creswell, 2008).
The present chapter starts with the proposed model and restatement of the
research questions. After that, the construction of the hypotheses is discussed. The
next section explains operational definitions of the variables including the structure type
of the independent and dependent variables and instruments and the structure type of
the surveys. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Knowledge Sharing
Questionnaire, and their reliability and validity, are discussed. The final section presents
49
data collection and method of analysis, including a description of the population,
sampling method, and method of analysis, respectively.
Proposed Model
Figure 3.1. Proposed model. Arrows depict the proposed relationship between variables.
As shown in Figure 3.1, it is proposed that police managers’ transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles are associated with line police officers’
knowledge sharing. In addition, it is expected that police managers’ leadership styles
have a direct effect on line police officers’ willingness to exert extra effort and an indirect
Transformational
Transactional
Laissez-faire
Knowledge Sharing
Extra Effort
Age
Graduation
Service Year
Gender
50
effect over their knowledge sharing. In order to better understand this concept, this
study will investigate sixteen hypotheses under three research questions.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
RQ: 1.How do line police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ leadership styles affect officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in providing better security?
Some studies (Adebayo, 2004; Murphy & Drodge, 2003; Levy, Cober & Miller,
2002) illustrate that transformational leadership has a positive effect on subordinates’
motivation and willingness to exert extra effort. In order to find the answer, the
researcher investigated the following hypotheses related to the above research
question:
H01: There is no relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transformational leadership style and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H1: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transformational leadership style and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H02: There is no relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transactional leadership style and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H2: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transactional leadership style and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H03: There is no relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ laissez-faire leadership style and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H3: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ laissez-faire leadership style and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
51
H04: There is no relationship between officers’ age and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H4: There is a relationship between officers’ age and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H05: There is no relationship between officers’ education level and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H5: There is a relationship between officers’ education level and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H06: There is no relationship between officers’ experience and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H6: There is a relationship between officers’ experience and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H07: There is no relationship between officers’ gender and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H7: There is a relationship between officers’ gender and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
RQ: 2.How do line police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ leadership styles affect officers’ knowledge sharing in providing better security?
Several studies (Verdu-Jover, 2008; Crawford, 2005; Politis, 2002) proved that
transformational leadership has a positive relationship with knowledge sharing. In other
words, subordinates’ willingness to share their knowledge increases when their leaders’
employ the transformational leadership style. On the other hand, as in the study of
Politis (2002), the transactional leadership style is negatively associated with knowledge
acquisition and sharing. In addition, Crawford (2005) points out that there is a negative
relationship between knowledge management behavior and laissez-faire leadership. In
light of the literature review, the following hypotheses are examined to answer this
research question:
52
H08: There is no relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transformational leadership style and officers’ knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H8: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transformational leadership style and officers’ knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H09: There is no relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transactional leadership style and officers’ knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H9: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transactional leadership style and officers’ knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H010: There is no relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ laissez-faire leadership style and officers’ knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H10: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ laissez-faire leadership style and officers’ knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H011: There is no relationship between officers’ age and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H11: There is a relationship between officers’ age and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H012: There is no relationship between officers’ education level and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H12: There is a relationship between officers’ education level and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H013: There is no relationship between officers’ experience and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H13: There is a relationship between officers’ experience and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. H014: There is no relationship between officers’ gender and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit.
53
H14: There is a relationship between officers’ gender and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit.
RQ: 3.How does line police officers’ knowledge sharing affect their willingness to exert extra effort in providing better security? As in the study of Garcia (2008), transformational leadership increases tacit
knowledge, which in turn increases motivation and extra effort. Similar to this result, the
following hypotheses are examined:
H015: There is no relationship between police officers’ knowledge sharing and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H15: There is a relationship between police officers’ knowledge sharing and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. H016: The relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ leadership styles and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit is not mediated by officers` knowledge sharing. H16: The relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ leadership styles and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit is mediated by officers` knowledge sharing.
Operational Definitions of Variables
This study has three independent variables representing police managers’
leadership styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. Besides these, there
are two dependent variables: police officers’ knowledge sharing and their willingness to
exert extra effort. The demographic variables are the respondents’ age, education,
service years in the TNP, and gender.
54
Independent (Exogenous) and Control Variables
Leadership Styles (Transformational, Transactional, Laissez-Faire)
The exogenous (independent) variable of police officers’ perceptions of their
leaders’ leadership styles was measured by using Bass and Avolio’s (2000) Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X).
Demographic Variables
Age: Respondents’ age was measured at the interval ratio level; the ages ranged
from 20 to 30 years.
Gender: Respondents’ gender was coded as 0=male, 1= female
Education: Respondents’ education level was categorized as 1 = high school, 2 =
a two year-college, 3 = university, 4 = masters.
Years of Service: Respondents’ service years in the Turkish National Police
organization was measured at the interval ratio level, and coded numerically.
Dependent (Endogenous) Variables
Extra Effort
One of the dependent variables is officers’ willingness to exert extra effort. Extra
effort refers to the actions taken by officers who perceive their leaders as motivators
and therefore have the desire to succeed and do more than is expected of them. Extra
effort is measured by one scale with three questions in the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X) as 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 =
fairly often, and 4 = frequently or always.
55
Knowledge Sharing
Another dependent variable of this study is knowledge sharing. Knowledge
sharing refers to the process whereby followers share their explicit and tacit knowledge
in the organization. Knowledge sharing is defined as "the act of making knowledge
available to others within the organization" (Ipe, 2003, p. 341). Sveiby and Simons’
(2002) questionnaire, which has 20 items under four dimensions, was employed to
measure the knowledge sharing of police officers working in the Riot Unit of the TNP.
Sveiby and Simons’ (2002) used a 5-point Likert scale, containing the values 5 =
strongly agree, 4 = agree 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree. For this
study, the Likert scale was altered in order to be compatible with the MLQ
questionnaire, resulting in the following values: 4 = strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 =
neutral, 1 = disagree, and 0 = strongly disagree.
As the questionnaire is close-ended, the respondents were provided multiple
choice answers. According to Fowler (1993), closed-ended questions are better ways
to avoid respondents’ biases related to their different perceptions. Additionally, he
states that preparing closed-ended question will enable each respondents with the
same perceptions related to the questions.
Instrumentation
In order to examine the relationships between Turkish Police Officers'
perceptions of their leader's leadership styles and officers` willingness to exert extra
effort through officers` knowledge sharing, a survey package including the short form of
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5X-Short), a demographic questionnaire,
56
and knowledge sharing qustionnaire were employed. Police officers' perceptions of their
leader's leadership styles weremeasuerd by the MLQ5X- Short questionnaire. The
knowledge sharing questioannire was used to measure the knowledge sharing of the
police officers working in the Riot Unit of Turkish National Police in Ankara. Finally, the
demographic questionnaire was used to get information about the demographic
characteristics of the officers participating in the survey.
Both the knowledge sharing and the MLQ5X- Short questionnaires incorporate
clear language that any ordinary law enforcement officer couldanswer without any
confusion. In additon, both questionnaire were designed to serve the researcher in
findingacorraliation between the impact ofleadership on officers` willingness to exert
extra effort through knowledge sharing.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
The MLQ was originally developed by Bass (1985) and later revised in the MLQ-
5X, which covers transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership models.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X) uses the 5-point Likert scale
(0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 = frequently or
always). So far, the MLQ has been translated and implemented in 30 languages,
including Turkish (Bass & Avolio, 2000).
The MLQ-5X includes 45 questions of which 36 measure leadership styles. Extra
effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction are measured by the other nine questions. Among
the leadership styles, transformational leadership is measured by 20 questions with five
leadership behavior dimensions: idealized influence (attributed) idealized influence
57
(behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration(Bass & Avolio, 2000). The characteristics and the item numbers of the
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles in the MLQ-5X Form
are explained next.
Idealized influence (attribute): Leaders who have the attribute of idealized
influence have a certain charisma. Their followers are affected by their ` aspiration and
followers want to emulate their leader. A leader with transformational characters is
“envisioning, confident, and sets high standards for emulation" (Bass & Steidlmeier,
1999, p. 2). The leaders’ idealized influence attribute is measured by Questions 6, 14,
23, and 34 on the MLQ-5X form.
Idealized influence (behavior): A leader who exhibits idealized influence behavior
“talks about his or her values and beliefs, has a strong sense of purpose, and has a
collective sense of mission” (Bass & Avolio, 2004, p. 97). Leaders` idealized influence
behavior is measured by Questions 6, 14, 23, and 34 on the MLQ-5X form.
Inspirational motivation:A leader who has the character of inspirational motivation
"provides followers with challenges and meaning for engaging in shared goals and
undertakings" " (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 2). Leaders` inspirational motivation is
measured by Questions 9, 13, 26, and 36 on the MLQ-5X Form.
Intellectual stimulation:Leaders who have the character of intellectual stimulation
“stimulate their followers’ effort to be innovative and creative” (Bass and Avolio, 2004, p.
98). Leaders` intellectual stimulation is measured by Questions 2, 8, 30, and 32 on the
MLQ-5X form.
Individual consideration: Leaders who have the character of individual
58
consideration evaluate each subordinate as an individual. These kinds of leaders " not
only recognize and satisfy current needs of their subordinates but also to arouse and
elevate those needs in an attempt to develop subordinates further" (Bass, Waldman,
Avolio, & Bebb, 1987). Leaders` individual consideration is measured by Questions 15,
19, 29, and 31 on the MLQ-5X form.
Besides that, the transactional leadership style is measured by 12 questions with
three dimensions, contingent reward, management by exception (active), and
management by exception (passive) (Bass & Avolio, 2000).
Contingent reward: Leaders who have the characteristics of contingent reward
motivate their followers with promises, rewards, and threats as well. Such leaders "
either make assignments or they may consult with followers about what is to be done in
exchange for implicit or explicit rewards and the desired allocation of resources" (Bass
& Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 3). Leaders` contingent reward is measured by Questions 1, 11,
16, and 35 on the MLQ-5X form.
Management by exception (active): Leaders who engage in active management
by exception always monitor subordinates` motivation and, if needed, make corrections
to any mistakes. Such leaders “focus attention on and keep track of mistakes” (Bass
and Avolio, 2004, p. 98). These characteristics of leaders` are measured by Questions
4, 22, 24, and 27 on the MLQ-5X form.
Management by exception (passive): Leaders who engage in passive
management by exception "wait passively for followers’ mistakes to be called to their
attention before taking corrective action with negative feedback or reprimands (Bass &
59
Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 2). This characteristic of leaders is measured by Questions 3, 12,
17, and 20 on the MLQ-5X form.
Furthermore, laissez-faire leadership is measured by one scale with four
questions (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Laissez-faire leaders avoid taking part in decision
making. They prefer not to take responsibility and not to interfere in the activities of
their followers. Moreover, they “are absent when needed” (Bass and Avolio, 2004, p.
99). This characteristic of leaders is measured by Questions 5, 7, 28, and 33 on the
MLQ-5X form.
Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire
The Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire was adapted by Sveiby and Simons’
(2002) questionnaire, slightly revised in order to be compatible with the characteristics
of the Riot Unit of the TNP. Sveiby and Simons (2002) carried out several stages in the
process of preparing the questionnaire. First of all, the literature was reviewed by three
panels of experts. Secondly, the total of 120 items were distributed to groups in three
settings, including a university research centre staff (n = 128), research and
development teams in Australian private sector firms (n = 213), and a government-
based expert system development teams. After conducting a factor analysis and
experimental testing, these items were reduced to fifty. Finally, the best items were
selected for the pilot test and the researchers decided to retain only 20 items for the
final instrument.
The Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire used in this study measures knowledge
sharing of police officers with 20 questions under four dimensions:
60
Work group support (WGS) refers to the attitudes and behaviors of those in the
participants` nearest work group. Work group support is measured by Questions 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 on the Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire.
Immediate supervisor (IS) refers to participants` thoughts about their immediate
supervisors. That item is measured by Questions 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 on the Knowledge
Sharing Questionnaire.
Organizational culture (OS) refers to the organizational culture outside of the
participants’ immediate work group and the behavior of leaders. This item is measured
by Questions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 on the Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire.
Employee attitude (EA) refers to the participants` own attitude toward sharing
knowledge in the organization. This item is measured by Questions 16, 17, 18, 19, and
20 on the Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire.
Validity and Reliability of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X Form and Knowledge Sharing
Kirk and Miller (1986) categorized three kinds of reliability in quantitative
research. One of them refers to the measurement that remains the same even if the
measurement is repeated. The second one refers to the measurement that remains
stable over time. The last one refers to the measurement that gives similar results in a
defined timeline. In this respect, Avolio and Bass (2004, p. 34) point out that “ the latest
version of the MLQ, Form 5X, has been used in nearly 300 research programs, doctoral
dissertations and master’s theses around the globe in the nearly ten years between
1995 and 2004.”
61
On the other hand, Golafshani (2003) explains validity as how accurately the
research measures the intended things or how truly the instrument measures the
research object. Several studies (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Gellis, 2001) illustrate that
the reliability and validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is high.
After developing the first verison of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
MLQ5R, by Bass (1985), the MLQ was revised several times by Bass and Avolio. The
reason for the revision of the early MLQ was the strong criticism of MLQ5R`s validity.
Hunt (1991), Smith and Peterson (1988), and Yukl (1994) areamong the scholars who
criticized the early version of the MLQ. They stated that the earlier version of the MLQ
had inedequate discrimant validity in terms of the factors that comprise the survey,
whichincluded both behavioral and impact itmes in the same survey scales. As a
consequence, in response to the critisims to the early version of MLQ 5R, the MLQ 5R
was revised, resulitng in the MLQ 5X. Likewise, the criticims of the MLQ 5X required a
revision of the MLQ 5X, resulting in the development of the MLQ 5X-Short Form. Avalio
and Bass (2004, p. 43) stated that "refinements to these leadership factors do not
negate the theoretical relevance or the significance of the orginal 6-factor model.
Rather, they represent and attempt to define more precisely the constructs." Avolio and
Bass (2004) tested this new version for the MLQ Form 5X for validation, calling it the full
range leaderhsip model.
The original theory of Bass (1985) included four transformational and two
transactional leadership factors. After that, Bass and his colleagues extended the theory
according to the results of the studies implemented between 1985 and 1990. The curent
full range leadership theory, used in the MLQ (Form 5X), has 9 single-order factors,
62
including 5 transformational leadership factors, 3 transactional leadership factors, and 1
non-transactional laissez-faire factor (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003).
Several studies were implemented to examine the validity and reliablity of the
MLQ 5X. For example, Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam (2003) focused on the
validity and reliability of the MLQ5X Short Form. Antonakis et al. (2003, p. 262)
investigatedwhether "the current version of the MLQ (Form 5X) instrument reliably
assess[es] the nine factors proposed by Bass and Avolio (1997)." To this end, they
carried out a two part study. The first study consisted of 3,368 male and female
participants. Amoung the participants, the number of males was 2289 while the number
of females was 1079. Analyses were conducted using same-gender leader–follower
data to avoid variation in terms of differences in gender. The results of Study 1 showed
that the value of the comparative fit index (CFI) was .901 and the value of root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .036. The 9-factor model indicated a best
fit when female and male rater samples were tested separately. The factor-level data
were used in the second study among 18 independently gathered samples (N = 6525
raters). The researchers grouped the studies according to the contexts having similar
conditions. The contextual factors included environmental risk, leader–follower gender,
and leader hierarchical level. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis indicated
that the RMSEA value was below the upper limit of .08 and the CFI value was above
.90. The results indicated that the nine factor model represented the data well.
Moreover, the researcher conducted a relability analysis to measure the internal
consistency of the MLQ5X Short Form. Internal consistence reliability refers to “whether
or not a test or a scale assesses a single construct” (Wasik, 1999, p. 527). It is
63
expected that all items in the index should have a correlation with each other. In this
point, Strickland (1999) explains that “alpha or internal consistency reliability is simply a
measure of the homogeneity of items on an instrument, or an average correlation of the
questionnaire’s items with each other” (p. 4). In other words, the more homogeneity the
items have, the more reliable the instrument is in terms of internal consistency.
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient (α) was used to measure the reliability of the
items in the MLQ5X Short Form questionnire. According to Nunnaly (1978), a score of
.70 or above is enough for Cronbach’s alpha to assume that each items in the
instrument are closely related to each other. In this study, the scores of Cronbach`s
alpha are .94, .67, .70, and .82 for the variables of transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, laissez-faire leadership, and officers` willingness to extra effort,
respectively.
Apart from MLQ form 5X, the Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire was tested by
Sveiby and Simons (2002) for reliability and validity. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the
four scales in the Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire were .89, .85, .88, and .81 for
organizational culture, immediate supervisor, employee attitude, and work group
support, respectively. These scores point to a very high reliability. In addition, the
Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire was allowed access to public and private
organization between 1999-2001. In this period, the instrument was not changed, and
8277 responses were stored in the database. In addition, the researcher conducted a
relability analysis to measure the internal consistency of the Knowledge Sharing
Questionnaire. The Cronbach`s alpha score of .93 indicated a high internal consistency
reliability for the Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire.
64
Data Collection
Population
The population of this study is police officers working in the Riot Unit of the
Turkish National Police (TNP) in Ankara, Turkey. The TNP has about 200,000
personnel, 185,000 of which are sworn personnel. The TNP is responsible for providing
public security, preserving the public from crimes, and investigating cases of criminal
activity. The police in Turkey have the right to carry short and long barrel light firearms
in order to fight crime (Karakiliç, 2007).
The Turkish National Police has two structural types: centralized and provincial.
The General Directorate of Security, which is a central structure for the TNP, is located
in the capital, Ankara. The General Directorate of Security is directed by the General
Director of Security, who is appointed by the Prime Minister. The General Director of
Security is accountable to the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior (Ozcan &
Gultekin, 2000). The centralized structure of the TNP has 32 divisions, including the
security division, the information division, and the foreign relations division. Each
division is responsible for specific given tasks is directed by a first degree chief of
police. The General Directorate of Security sets up policies and regulations that are
implemented in each center’s divisions and provincial security departments (Cerrah,
2006).
Apart from the General Directorate of Security, Turkey has 81 provinces. Each
province has its own security directorates led by a first degree chief of police. All
provincial security departments work under the authority of city governors who are
appointed by the Prime Minister. The city governors are the officials at the top of the city
65
structure. Even if the provincial security departments work under the authority of city
governors, the General Directorate of Security has full authority over all provincial
security departments. All of the provincial security department personnel are appointed
by the General Directorate of Security (Ozcan & Gultekin, 2000).
The TNP has followed two kinds of recruitment processes while selecting line
police officers. First, people who graduated from high school can be a line police officer
after completing two years of education in a police school. Another option for people
who have graduated from a university is to join this organization after he/she completes
eight months of education in police school.
Unlike in the recruitment of line police officers, the TNP has special processes for
training candidates who wish to become ranked police officers. In order to become a
ranked police officer, the candidate must attend the four-year Police College after
graduating from any middle school. After graduating from the Police College, the
candidate must attend the four-year Police Academy. In addition, a person who
graduated from any high school without attending Police College can also attend the
four-year Police Academy to become a ranked police officer. After graduating from
Police Academy, ranked police officers are promoted through the higher ranks as they
meet certain requirements. Line police officers already working in the TNP can also
become ranked police officers by passing the qualifying exam and attending eight
months of preparatory courses in the police school. However, line police officers must
work in the TNP at least five years as before being eligible to attempt the qualifying
exam.
66
Riot Units are established under the supervisor of the security department of the
General Directorate of Security. The aim of the Riot Units in the 81 provinces is to
maintain the public’s right of social movement and demonstrations in a secure way.
When assigned to work in this unit, police officers should serve at least three years. As
the police structure is based on centralized management, after working three years in
the Riot Units, one can be assigned to another unit.
This study was confined to line police officers working in the Riot Unit of Turkish
National Police in Ankara, Turkey. Istanbul, Izmir, and Ankara are the biggest cities in
Turkey. The Riot Unit in Ankara has a population of 2000 employees. 92 of the
employees are police managers (having different ranks). Since the survey will be
distributed to sworn police officers, the total population for the current study will be 1910
sworn line police officers.
Sampling Method
This research is a quantitative study. Social science research is “a creative
process of insight and discovery taking place within a well-established structure of
scientific inquiry” (King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994, p.12). Additionally, social research
seeks to identify and ameliorate the problems emerging in the social world (Singleton
and Straits, 2005). To answer these problems, social research methods can be divided
into two main segments: quantitative and qualitative. Some scholars propose that there
are numerous differences between qualitative and quantitative research. However,
according to King, Keohane, & Verba (1994), appropriate qualitative and quantitative
research do not vary methodologically and substantively. Only stylistic difference may
67
occur, however. They add that both qualitative and quantitative research studies have
different styles of research but one logic of consequence. In addition, the aim of the
quantitative research is to conclude whether the predictive generalization of a theory is
valid.
Generally, probability sampling designs are used in the quantitative research
design as it assumes that each subject has an equal chance to be selected and
included in the sample. Thus, most of the researchers prefer to use probability sampling
in survey research to generalize the results of their analysis to a larger population.
Simple random sampling, systematic sampling, stratified sampling, and multi-stage
cluster sampling are the sampling methods that are used under probability sampling
designs (Babbie, 2007).
The researcher employed simple random sampling as the Riot Unit has an up-to-
date list of its entire staff freely available to employees of the police department.
Additionally, the list includes the up-to-date telephone numbers and mailing addresses
of the police officers. For the current study, the sample size is 331 sworn police officers,
approximately one-fifth of the whole population.As in the table of Bartlett, Kortlik and
Higgins’ (2001) “table for determining [a] minimum returned sample size for a given
population size for continuous and categorical data” (p. 48), a sample size of 112is
enough for a population size of 2000 with a .03 margin of error. Therefore, 331 sworn
police officers as a sample size will sufficiently reflect a population of 1,910 for this
study.In terms of the covariance structure model, Boomsma and Hoogland (2001)
assert that the sample size of 200 and over is enough for a reliable result if the model is
correct. They also add that the sample size of 200 and over hardly constitutes a
68
problem for the results. The researcher selected 331 sworn line police officers as a
sample size by using simple random sampling according to the structure type of the Riot
Unit, which variously involves working in a squad, group, or team.
Data Collection Method
The Ankara Riot Unit consists of 10 squads, each squad having approximately
120-130 line police officers. Every squad is managed under a police major. In addition,
each squad has three groups, each of which has at least four teams. Moreover, each
team has ten line police officers. Line police officers work under the command of police
managers in the Riot Unit. Therefore, before conducting the survey, police managers
were informed about the process. In order to get a high response rate, police managers
were asked to inform line police officers about the current survey, which was delivered
to each officers` mail box in the Riot Unit. Additionally, the list of employees was
provided from police managers.
The mail-in survey method was chosen for this study. Since all police officers
have a locker and post box in the compound, the mail surveys were delivered to their
lockers. They were asked to fill the survey and return it to a large box placed in a
specific location in the compound. This preserved anonymity while also giving the line
police officer’s confidence about the anonymity of their answers. Additionally, the mail-in
survey method was preferred for this study because the group administration method
would cause officers to feel pressure from their superiors to respond to the survey.
Moreover, it would also harm the anonymity of the police officers participating.
69
In order to avoid the generalization problem in the Riot Unit, the researcher paid
great attention to the process of sending the surveys to line police officers working in
different squads. Selecting the sample within each squad and sending the surveys to
line police officers working in different squads will provide a general evaluative strength
for the results of this study.
The questionnaires of Multifactor Leadership (MLQ), Knowledge Sharing, and
demographics were arranged as a booklet and sent to randomly selected officers` mail
boxes.
Method of Analysis
The current study has two dependent variable --; knowledge sharing and extra
effort --and three independent variables --transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership. In addition, gender, age, education level, and service years of the
officers were used as control variables for this study.
SPSS-15 and AMOS 16.0 software were used for the analysis of this study. First,
the researcher coded the data for the SPSS 15 software and conducted a descriptive
frequency analysis including standard deviations, frequencies, and means to better
understand the characteristics of the sample. Then, the researcher produced a
correlation matrix table to examine the linear associations between the dependent and
independent variables used in the current study.
Last but not least, multivariate statistical analyses were performed in order to test
the hypotheses. As the dependents are continuous variables, the ordinary least squares
(OLS) regression technique was deemed appropriate for this study. The multiple
70
regressions consisted of five models. Line police officers` willingness to exert extra
effort was regressed on police managers` leadership styles (transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire)in the first model. The mediating variable (officers`
knowledge sharing) was added to the first model, and officers` willingness to exert extra
effort was regressed on both the mediating variable and the police managers` three
leadership styles in the second model. The demographics of the officers (gender, age,
education, and service years in the TNP) were added to the second model, and officers`
willingness to exert extra effort was regressed on police managers` three leadership
styles, the mediating variable, and the officers` demographic variables in the third
model.
In the second phase, officers` knowledge sharing was regressed on their police
managers` three leadership styles in the fourth model. Then, the demographics of the
officers (gender, age, education, and service years in TNP) were added to the second
model and the officers` knowledge sharing was regressed on both of their managers`
three leadership styles and demographic variables of the officers.
Finally, the researcher conducted a mediating analysis in order to reveal the effect
of the third variable on the association between the dependent and independent
variables. Because one of the aims of this study is to examine the effect of the
mediating variable – officers` knowledge sharing—on the dependent variable – officers`
willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
71
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents the effect of police officers’ perception of their leaders’
leadership styles and its impact on police officers’ willingness to exert extra effort
through knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit of the Turkish National Police (TNP) in
Ankara, Turkey. In the first phase, the use of descriptive statistics, univariate
distributions and bivariate analyses are displayed. Second, multivariate analyses and
their results are presented. Lastly, the mediated analyses are implemented, and the
direct, indirect and total effects are discussed.
Descriptive Statistics
The data were collected from line police officers working in the Riot Unit of the
TNP in the city of Ankara via a paper-based survey data collection method. The total
number of surveys sent to the officers was 400. The 331 samples were taken into
consideration as this is large enough a sample for the necessary confidence level of this
study. 69 samples were not usable because of their being in complete or unusable. As a
consequence, the response rate was 82.75% for this study.
First of all, the data were screenedin order toidentify the missing data and
outliers. Missing data were handled by replacing the missing values with the mean of
the series method. Therefore, the researcher did not lose any part of the sample. Later,
in order to avoid outliers capable of distoringt the results of the study statistically,
univariate and multivariate outliers were examined. In terms of examining univariate
72
outliers, as adaptedfrom Mertler and Vannatta (2005), the data were transformed to z-
scores, anyz value greater than + 4.00 or less than -4.00 beingconsiderd an outlier. In
order to identify the multivariate outliers, the statistical technique Mahalanobis distance
was used. The Mahlonobis distance value p < .001 was accepted as thecriterion for
outliers (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). In both examinations, six cases were determined as
outliers and eliminated from the data set.
Second, the researcher evaluated the assumptions of the ordinary least squares
(OLS) multiple regressions. First, kurtosis and skewness values of the variables were
examined in order to maintain the normality assumption. It was noted that only the
variable of police officers’ service years in the TNP was found as positively skewed as it
exceeded the value of 1.0. In order to ensure that the variable was normally distributed,
a square root transformation was applied (see Table 4.4). Moreover, residual plot
linearity and homoscedasticity were assessed in order to see whether the data were
consistently spread out. The results indicated that there was no indicator able to harm
linearity and homoscedasticity (see Appendix H) . Last but not least, the researcher
investigated the multi-collinearity issue in order to see whether the variance inflation
factors (VIF) were smaller than 10 (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). The results revealed that
there was no problem with multi-collinearity for the regression analysis Finally, all the
results indicated that the assumptions of the OLS regression were met.
Frequency and Percentage Distributions for the Control Variables
The control variables were the demographic characteristics of the respondents
participating in this study. The age, gender, service years in the TNP, and education
73
level of the participant police officers were considered to have effect on both their
knowledge sharing and willingness to exert extra effort in their jobs.
The following tables illustrate the descriptive statistics of the control variables
including percentage distribution and frequencies.
Gender: As seen in Table 4.1, 9.4 % of the sample (31) is female and 90.6%
(300) is male. The gender distribution of this study is consistent with the actual
proportion of gender distribution in the total population of the TNP (Ozmen, 2008).
Table 4.1
Gender Distribution
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Female 31 9.4 9.4 Male 300 90.6 100.0 Total 331 100.0
Age: In terms of age, the sample ranges from 20 to 30 years with an average age
of 24.8 and a mode of 26 (see Table 4.2). The largest age group (40.2 %) ranges
between 23 and 25 in this sample.
Table 4.2
Age Group Distribution
Age Range Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Mean: 24.8 Mode: 26
20-22 62 18.7 18.7 23-25 133 40.2 58.9 26-28 115 34.7 93.7 29-30 21 6.3 100.0 Total 331 100.0
74
Education: The education levels of the Police officers ranged from high school to
master’s degree. Table 4.3 illustrates that only 3 (0.9 %) of the participants had only
completed high school while largest proportion, representing those participants who had
attained a university degree, is 176 (53.2 %).
Table 4.3
Education Levels
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
High school 3 0.9 0.9 Two-year college 139 42.0 42.9 University 176 53.2 96.1 Masters 12 3.7 99.7 Doctorate 1 0.3 100.0 Total 331 100.0
Service years: The participant police officers` service years in the TNP ranged
from <1 to 6 years. The majority of the participants(194; 58.6 %)had worked at least 1
year in the TNP. The average year of service for the sample was 1.3 years and the
mode was 1 year (see Table 4.4).
Table 4.4
Service Year
Service Years Freq Percent Cumulative
Percent Mean Mode Skewness Kurtosis
< 1 54 16.3 16.3
1.3 1 1.144 0.703
1.00 194 58.6 74.9 2.00 25 7.6 82.5 3.00 37 11.2 93.7 4.00 18 5.5 99.7 6.00 1 0.3 100.0 Total 331 100.0
75
Descriptive Statistics for Dependent and Independent variables
The dependent (endogenous) variable for this study is officers` willingness to
exert extra effort. Officers` knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit is assigned as a
mediating variable. Officers` perceptions about their leaders` leadership
behaviors(transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire
leadership) are the independent (exogenous) variables (See Table 4.5).
Line police officers` perceptions about their manager`s transformational
leadership were measured with 20 items in the MLQ 5X (short form). Participants
responded to the MLQ along the following criteria: 0 = not at all; 1 = once in a while; 2 =
sometimes; 3 = fairly often; and 4 = frequently if not always.
The mean scores of the descriptive analysis of leadership variables and
dependent variables were represented in the Table 4.5. The mean score of 1.938 with
a standard deviation of 0.88961 indicates that subordinate officers perceived their
leaders as sometimes demonstrating transformational behavior. Likewise, the mean
score of 1.9265 with a standard deviation of 0.57502 indicates that subordinate officers
perceived their leaders as sometimes demonstrating transactional behavior. Besides
that, the mean score of 1.7571 with a standard deviation of.93638 indicates that
subordinate officers perceived their leaders as sometimes demonstrating laissez-faire
behavior once in a while or at most. In addition, the mean score of officers` willingness
to exert extra effort of 1.8541 with a standard deviation of 1.08618 indicates that
subordinate officers were once in a while or at most sometimes willing to exert extra
effort. In terms of knowledge sharing, the mean score of 1.9906 with a standard
deviation of .8396 indicates that subordinate officers sometimes share their knowledge.
76
Univariate Distributions
A normality test was applied to all variables used in this study to inspect the
distribution of the variables. As stated by Mertler and Vannatta (2005, p. 31) “data
transformations involve the application of mathematical procedures to the data in order
to make them appear ‘more normal.’” After maintaining the analyses it was noted that
only the variable of police officers’ service years in the TNP was found to be positively
skewed. In order to make the variable normally distributed, a square root transformation
was applied the variable of officers` service year in the TNP. The descriptive statistic for
service years can be seen in Table 4.4.
Table 4.5
Descriptive Statistics for Dependent and Independent Variables
Variable Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Dependent variable Extra effort 1.8541 1.08618 -0.154 -0.855 Mediating variable Knowledge sharing 1.9906 0.80396 -0.192 -0.614
Independent variables
Transformational 1.938 0.88961 -0.266 -0.760 Transactional 1.9265 0.57502 -0.016 -0.204 Laissez-faire 1.7571 0.93638 0.106 -0.635
Bivariate Analyses
Table 4.6 represents the bivariate correlations between dependent and
independent variables. In order to determine the degree of association between two
quantitative variables, a bivariate correlation was used. Bivariate regression "utilizes the
relationship between the independent and dependent variables to predict the score of
the dependent variable from the independent variable" (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005, p.
13). One of the aspects of using a bivariate correlation matrix is to find variables that
77
might have high intercorrelations with each other and therefore might mislead results in
multivariate analyses. According to Berry and Feldman (1985) the cut-off value for
multicollinearity is 0.80, which is not considered a problem unless the correlations
between two variables exceed the value of 0.80.
According to the bivariate correlation results, Hypotheses H1 and H2,
investigating the effect of transformational and transactional leadership on police
officers` willingness to exert extra effort, are supported. There is a statistically significant
positive correlation between transformational leadership and police officers’ willingness
to exert extra effort (r = .794, p < 0.01). This is to say, police officers’ willingness to exert
extra effort is more likely to be higher when their leaders have a transformational
leadership style. Likewise, there is a statistically significant positive correlation between
transactional leadership and police officers’ willingness to exert extra effort (r = .561, p <
0.01). Thus, the researcher rejected the corollary null hypotheses (H01 and H02).
On the other hand, Hypothesis H3, concerning the effect of laissez-faire
leadership on police officers` willingness to exert extra effort, was not supported. As a
result, Null Hypothesis H03 failed to be rejected.
In terms of the correlation between the independent variables (transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leaderships) and the mediating variable (knowledge
sharing), the Research Hypotheses H8 and H9 are supported. There is a statistically
significant positive correlation between managers` transformational leadership and
officers` knowledge sharing (r = 0.585, p < 0.01). This result indicates that
transformational leadership has a positive effect on police officers’ knowledge sharing in
the organization. Table 4.6 also illustrates that there is a statistically significant positive
78
correlation between managers’ transactional leadership and officers` knowledge sharing
(r = .519, p < 0.01). This is to say, police officers` knowledge sharing activities increase
with their managers’ both transformational and transactional leadership styles. As a
result, the researcher rejected Null Hypotheses H08 and H09.
Contrary to the expectation, Null Hypothesis H010 failed to be rejected, so
Research Hypothesis H10, concerning the effect of the laissez-faire leadership on
police officers` knowledge sharing, is not supported.
The correlation between the dependent variable (extra effort) and the mediating
variable (knowledge sharing) is shown in Table 4.6. According to the results, there is a
statistically significant positive correlation between police officers` knowledge sharing
and their willingness to exert extra effort (r = .558, p < 0.01). That is to say, police
officers’ willingness to exert extra effort is more likely to be higher when they share their
knowledge in the organization. As a result, Research Hypothesis H15 was supported
and Null Hypothesis H015 was rejected.
According to the bivariate correlation results presented in Table 4.6, Hypotheses
H4, H5, H6, and H7 related to the impact of the control variables (age, education,
service years in the TNP, and gender) on police officers` willingness to exert extra effort
were not supported. Thus, the researcher failed to reject Null Hypotheses H04, H05,
H06, and H07. Likewise, Hypotheses H11, H12, and H14 concerned with the effect of
age, education, and gender on police officers` knowledge sharing in the organization
were not supported. Therefore, Null Hypotheses H011, H012, and H014 failed to be
rejected. Among the control variables, only line police officers` service years in the TNP
has a statistically significant positive correlation with officers` knowledge sharing
79
Table 4.6
Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Extra -
Transformational .794(**) -
Transactional .561(**) .694(**) -
Laissez-faire -0.100 -.175(**) .229(**) -
Knowledge Sharing .558(**) .585(**) .519(**) 0.042 -
Age 0.085 .137(*) 0.082 -0.024 0.047 -
Graduation 0.054 .134(*) 0.059 -.142(*) -0.006 .665(**) -
Service Year 0.018 0.015 .133(*) .202(**) .147(**) -.196(**) -.123(*) -
Gender 0.016 0.001 -0.007 0.048 0.016 -0.006 -0.023 0.101 -
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
80
(r = .147, p < 0.01). As a result, research hypothesis H13 was supported and the
researcher rejected Null Hypothesis H013.
Multivariate Analyses
The following multivariate regression models and analyses examine the impact of
the police officers` managers` leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire ) on the officers` willingness to exert extra effort (dependent), and officers`
knowledge sharing (mediating variable) among 325 police officers working in the Riot
Unit of TNP in Ankara, Turkey. In order to maintain the analyses, three models were
designed in the first phase and two in the second phase. The first model examines the
impact of leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) on
officers` willingness to exert extra effort in the organization. The second model
investigates the impact of leadership styles (independent variables) and the mediation
variable (knowledge sharing) on officers` willingness to exert extra effort in the
organization. The third model examines whether there will be a change in officers`
willingness to exert extra effort (dependent) in the organization after including the
control variables (age, education, service year in TNP, and gender) along with the
independent and mediation variables.
In the second phase, the first model examines the impact of leadership styles
(transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) on officers` knowledge sharing in the
organization. The second model examines whether there will be a change in officers`
knowledge sharing (dependent) in the organization after including the control variables
(age, education, service year in TNP, and gender)
81
OLS Regression Results for Officers` Willingness to Exert Extra Effort
The results of the ordinary least squares (OLS) of the first three models are
presented separately. Model 1 addresses the impact of managers` leadership styles --
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire -- on line police officers` willingness to
exert extra effort.
The results of the Model 1 regression analysis are presented in the following
tables: model summary (Table 4.7), ANOVA table (Table 4. 8) and coefficients table
(Table 4.9). Both the tables of the ANOVA and the model summary indicate that the
overall model of the three independent variables significantly predicts the officers`
willingness to exert extra effort (R2 = 0.631, F (3,321) = 183.288, p < 0.001). In terms of
the R2 value, Model 1 explains 63 % of the variation in an individual`s willingness to
exert extra effort. The variable of transformational leadership (β = 0.807, p < 0.001)
makes a significant contribution to the model. According to the results of the B weights,
the equation for this model is:
E(Y) = a + B(Transformational) X (Transformational) + B(Transactional) X (Transactional) + B(Laissez-faire) X (Laissez-faire) Extra Effort = –0.112 + 0.986 X transformational leadership – 0.17 X transactional leadership + 0.050 X laissez-faire leadership Table 4.7
Model 1 Summary Table for the First Regression Analysis of Extra Effort
R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error of the Estimate
.795(a) 0.631 0.628 0.66252
Predictors: (Constant), Laissez-faire Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership
82
Table 4.8
ANOVA Summary Table for the First Regression, Model 1
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Regression 241.353 3 80.451 183.288 .000
Residual 140.897 321 0.439
Total 382.250 324
Predictors: (Constant), Laissez-faire Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership. Dependent Variable: Extra Effort
Table 4.9
Model 1 Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. VIF B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -0.112 0.136 -0.827 0.409 Transformational 0.986 0.065 0.807 15.088 0.000 2.494 Transactional -0.17 0.102 -0.009 -0.166 0.868 2.551 Laissez-faire 0.050 0.046 0.044 1.099 0.272 1.365
Dependent Variable: Extra Effort
The multiple regression results related to Model 1 indicated a statistically
significant positive relationship between officers` willingness to exert extra effort and
their perceptions of the transformational leadership of their managers (B = 0.986, p <
0.001). That is to say, officers` willingness to exert extra effort increases when their
immediate managers exhibit transformational leadership behavior. As the first model
supported Research Hypothesis H1, Null Hypothesis H01 (a denial of the relatedness of
officers’ perceptions of transformational leadership and willingness to exert extra effort)
was rejected.
83
Contrary to the expectation, two research hypotheses (H2 and H3) regarding the
impact of officers’ managers’ both transactional and laissez-faire leadership on officers’
willingness to extra effort are not supported by the first model (B = -0.17, p = 0.868 and
B = 0.050, p = 0.272, respectively). That is controlling for other variables, these two
variables do not have a significant effect on officers’ willingness to extra effort in the Riot
Unit. For that reason, the researcher failed to reject Null Hypotheses H02 and H03.
Model 2 maintains the analysis by adding the knowledge sharing variable to
Model 1. The results of Model 2 regression analysis are presented in the tables below:
model summary (Table 4.10), ANOVA table (Table 4. 11) and coefficients table (Table
4.12). Both the tables of the ANOVA and the model summary indicate that the overall
model of four independent variables significantly predicts the officers` willingness to
exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. In terms of the R2 value (0.644), Model 2 explains 64%
of the variation in an individual`s willingness to exert extra effort. The overall F statistic
(F (4,320) = 144.574, p < 0.001) indicates sufficient evidence to reject the null
hypothesis that all of the regression coefficients obtained from this model are equal to
zero. Both the variable of transformational leadership (β = 0.738, p < 0.001) and
knowledge sharing (β = 0.141, p < 0.05) make a significant contribution to the model.
According to the results of the B weights, the equation for this model is:
E(Y) = a + B(Transformational) X (Transformational) + B(Transactional) X (Transactional) + B(Laissez-faire) X (Laissez-faire) + B(Knowledge Sharing) X (Knowledge Sharing) Extra Effort = -0.220 + 0.901 X transformational leadership+ -0.058 X transactional leadership + 0.035 X laissez faire leadership + 0.190 X knowledge sharing
84
Table 4.10
Model 2 Summary Table for the Second Regression Analysis of Extra Effort
R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error of the Estimate
.802(a) 0.644 0.639 0.65232
Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge Sharing, Laissez-faire Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership
Table 4.11
ANOVA Summary Table for the Second Regression, Model 2
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Regression 246.181 4 61.520 144.574 .000
Residual 136.169 320 0.426
Total 382.250 324
Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge Sharing, Laissez-faire Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership. Dependent Variable: Extra
Table 4.12
Model 2 Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig. VIF
B Std. Error Beta (Constant) -0.220 0.138 -1.598 0.111 Transformational 0.901 0.69 0.738 13.034 0.000 2.881 Transactional -0.058 0.101 -0.031 -0.576 0.565 2.590 Laissez 0.035 0.045 0.031 0.780 0.436 1.378 Knowledge Sharing 0.190 0.057 0.141 3.333 0.001 1.596
Dependent Variable: Extra Effort
85
Consistent with Model 1, the multiple regression results related to Model 2 indicated a
statistically significant positive relationship between officers` willingness to exert extra
effort and their perception of transformational leadership about their managers (B =
0.901, p < 0.001). Likewise, officers’ knowledge sharing has a statistically significant
positive relationship with their willingness to exert extra effort (B = 0.190, p < 0.05).
That is to say, officers’ willingness to exert extra effort increases when their knowledge
sharing increases. According to the results of Model 2, Null Hypotheses H01 and H015
were rejected and Research Hypotheses H1 and H15 were supported.
Parallel to the results of Model 1, adding officers’ knowledge sharing to Model 2
did not alter the insignificant relationship between officers’ managers’ both transactional
(B = -0.058, p = 0.565) and laissez-fair leadership (B = 0.035, p = 0.436) and their
willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. Since these two variables are not
supported in terms of the results of Model 2, the researcher failed to reject Null
Hypotheses H02 and H03, so the Research Hypotheses H2 and H3 were not supported.
The results of the Model 3 regression analysis are presented in the following
tables: model summary (Table 4.13), ANOVA table (Table 4. 14) and coefficients table
(Table 4.15). Both of the ANOVA and the model summary tables indicate that the
overall model of four independent variables and four control variables significantly
predict an officer` willingness to exert extra effort (R2 = 0.646, F(8,316) = 72.026, p <
0.001). In terms of the R2 value, Model 3 explains approximately 65% of the variation in
an individual`s willingness to exert extra effort. The variable of transformational
leadership (β = 0.741, p < 0.001) and officers` knowledge sharing (β = 0.139, p < 0.05)
86
make a significant contribution to the model. According to the results of the B weights,
the equation for this model is:
E(Y) = 𝛼 + B(Transformational) X (Transformational) + B(Transactional) X (Transactional) + B(Laissez-faire) X (Laissez-faire) + B(Knowledge Sharing) X (Knowledge Sharing) + B(Age) X (Age) + B(Graduation) X (Graduation) + B(Service year) X (Service year) + B(Gender) X (Gender) Extra Effort = 0.053 + 0.904 X transformational leadership – 0.049 X transactional leadership + 0.032 X laissez faire leadership + 0.188 X Knowledge Sharing + 0.008 X Age - 0.085 X Graduation - 0.042 X Experience + 0.47 X Gender Table 4.13
Model 3 Summary Table for the Third Regression Analysis of Extra Effort
R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error of the Estimate
.804(a) 0.646 0.637 0.65455
Predictors: (Constant), gender of responders, Transformational Leadership, Service year in TNP, Graduation of responders, Laissez-faire Leadership, Knowledge Sharing, Age of responders, Transactional Leadership.
Table 4.14
ANOVA Summary Table for the Third Regression, Model 3
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Regression 246.866 8 30.858 72.026 .000
Residual 135.384 316 0.428
Total 382.250 324
Predictors: (Constant), gender of responders, Transformational Leadership, Service year in TNP, Graduation of responders, Laissez-faire Leadership, Knowledge Sharing, Age of responders, Transactional Leadership. Dependent Variable: Extra Effort
87
Table 4.15
Model 3 Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. VIF
B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 0.053 0.308 0.173 0.862 Transformational 0.904 0.070 0.741 12.926 0.000 2.930 Transactional -0.049 0.102 -0.026 -0.482 0.630 2.611 Laissez 0.032 0.047 0.027 0.679 0.497 1.443 Knowledge sharing 0.188 0.058 0.139 3.246 0.001 1.636 Age 0.008 0.60 0.006 0.133 0.894 1.892 Graduation -0.085 0.086 -0.045 -0.986 0.325 1.869 Service Year -0.042 0.072 -0.021 -0.592 0.554 1.128 Gender 0.147 0.126 0.013 0.371 0.711 1.014
Dependent Variable: Extra Effort
The multiple regression results related to Model 3 indicated a statistically
significant positive relationship between officers` willingness to exert extra effort and
their perception of transformational leadership about their managers (B = 0.904, p <
0.001). That is to say, officers` willingness to exert extra effort increases when their
immediate managers exhibit a transformational leadership behavior. Likewise, a
significant positive relationship exists between officers` willingness to exert extra effort
and their knowledge sharing (B = 0.188, p <0.05). That is to say, officers’ willingness to
exert extra effort increases when their knowledge sharing increases. Transformational
leadership is the strongest predicting variable in Model 3 as it has the largest
standardized coefficient (β = 0.741, p = 0.05).
88
Table 4.16
Summary of OLS Regression Analyses of Officers` Extra Effort
Variables
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Extra Effort Extra Effort Extra Effort
Ba (SE) βb VIFc Ba (SE) βb VIFc Ba (SE) βb VIFc
Independent Variables
Transformational 0.986*** (0.065) 0.807 2.494 0.901***
(0.69) 0.738 2.881 0.904*** (0.70) 0.741 2.93
Transactional (-) 0.17 (0.102) -0.009 2.551 (-) 0.058
(0.101) -0.031 2.59 (-) 0.049 (0.102) -0.026 2.611
Laissez-faire 0.05 (0.046) 0.044 1.365 0.035
(0.045) 0.031 1.378 0.032 (0.047) 0.027 1.443
Mediating Variable Knowledge Sharing
0.190*** (0.057) 0.141 1.596 0.188***
(0.058) 0.139 1.636
Control Variables
Age 0.008
(0.6) 0.006 1.892
Graduation (-) 0.085
(0.086) -0.045 1.869
Service Year (-) 0.042
(0.072) -0.021 1.128
Gender 0.147
(0.126) 0.013 1.014
Model R2 0.631 0.644 0.646
*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01 (Two tailed test), aUnstandardized regression coefficient, bStandardized regression coefficient, c Variance inflation factor.
89
Parallel to the previous two models (Models 1 and 2), two research hypotheses,
H2 and H3, regarding the impact of officers’ managers’ both transactional and laissez-
faire leadership, are not related to officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the third
model (B = -0.049, p = 0.630 and B = 0.032, p = 0.497 respectively). That is, controlling
for other variables, these two do not have a significant effect on officers’ willingness to
exert extra effort in the Riot Unit. For that reason, the researcher failed to reject Null
Hypotheses H02 and H03.
Contrary to expectation, the four research hypotheses related to the impact of
officers` age (H4), graduation (H5), service years (H6), and gender (H7) are not
supported by Model 3. That is, controlling for other variables, these variables do not
have a significant effect on officers` willingness to exert extra effort. Thus, the
researcher failed to reject Null Hypotheses H04, H05, H06, and H07.
OLS Regression Results for Officers` Knowledge Sharing
The following tables provide the results of the ordinary least squares related to
officers` knowledge sharing. Model 1 address the impact of managers` leadership
styles -- transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire -- on police officers`
knowledge sharing.
The results of the Model 1 regression analysis are presented in the following
tables: model summary (Table 4.16), ANOVA table (Table 4. 17) and coefficients table
(Table 4.18). Both of the ANOVA and the model summary tables indicate that the
overall model of three independent variables significantly predicts officers` knowledge
sharing in the Riot Unit (R2 = 0.373, F(3,321) = 63.762, p < 0.001). In terms of the R2
90
value, Model 1 explains 37% of the variation in an individual`s knowledge sharing.
The standardized coefficient for transformational leadership, β = 0.493,
indicates that this variable has the strongest impact on officers` knowledge sharing
among the variables used in Model 1. According to the results of the B weights, the
equation for this model is:
E(Y) = a + B (Transformational) X (Transformational) + B(Transactional) X (Transactional) + B(Laissez-faire) X (Laissez-faire) Knowledge sharing = 0.567+ 0.445 X transformational leadership + 0.219 X transactional leadership + 0.044 X laissez-faire leadership
Table 4.17
Model 1 Summary Table for the First Regression Analysis of Knowledge Sharing
R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error of the Estimate
.611(a) 0.373 0.368 0.63937
Predictors: (Constant), Laissez-faire Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership
Table 4.18
ANOVA Summary Table for the First Regression, Model 1
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Regression 78.197 3 26.066 63.762 .000 Residual 131.223 321 0.409 Total 209.420 324
Predictors: (Constant), Laissez-faire Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership. Dependent Variable: Knowledge Sharing.
91
Table 4.19
Model 1 Coefficients
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients t Sig. VIF
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 0.567 0.131 4.320 0.000 Transformational 0.445 0.063 0.493 7.062 0.000 2.494 Transactional 0.219 0.099 0.156 2.216 0.027 2.551 Laissez-faire 0.079 0.044 0.092 1.786 0.075 1.365 Dependent Variable: Knowledge Sharing
The multiple regression results related to Model 1 indicated a statistically
significant positive relationship between officers` knowledge sharing and their
perception of transformational leadership about their managers. That is to say, officers`
knowledge sharing increases when their immediate managers exhibit a transformational
leadership behavior (B = 0.445, p < 0.001) Likewise, transactional leadership was found
to have a significant relationship with officers` knowledge sharing. (B = 0.219, p <
0.05). The results of Model 1 support two research hypotheses (H8 and H9), so the
researcher rejected Null Hypotheses H08 and H09.
Contrary to expectation, Research Hypothesis H10, regarding the impact of
officers’ managers’ laissez-faire leadership on officers’ knowledge sharing, is not
supported by the first model (B = 0.079, p = 0.075). That is controlling for other
variables, managers` laissez-fair leadership does not have a significant effect on
officers’ knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. For that reason, the researcher failed to
reject Null Hypothesis H010.
Model 2 consists of adding control variables to Model 1 and examines the impact
92
of the control variables. The results of the Model 2 regression analysis are shown in the
model summary (Table 4.19), ANOVA table (Table 4. 20) and coefficients table (Table
4.21). Both the tables of the ANOVA and the model summary indicate that the overall
model of three independent variables and four control variables significantly predicts
officers` knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit (R2 = 0.389, F(7,317) = 28.809, p < 0.001).
In terms of the R2 value, Model 1 explains approximately 39% of the variation in an
individual`s knowledge sharing.
According to the results of the B weights, the equation for this model is:
E(Y) = 𝛼 + B(Transformational) X (Transformational) + B(Transactional) X (Transactional) + B(Laissez-faire) X (Laissez-faire) + B(Age) X (Age) + B(Graduation) X (Graduation) + B(Service year) X (Service year) + B(Gender) X (Gender) Knowledge sharing = 0.824+ 0.450 X transformational leadership + 0.206 X transactional leadership + 0.053 X laissez-faire leadership + 0.049 X Age - 0.131 X Graduation + 0.158 X Service year + 0.003 X Gender Table 4.20
Model 2 Summary for the Second Regression Analysis of Knowledge Sharing
R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error of the Estimate
.624(a) 0.389 0.375 0.63543 Predictors: (Constant), Gender of responders, Transformational Leadership, Service year in TNP, Graduation of responders, Laissez-faire Leadership, Age of responders, Transactional Leadership
Table 4.21
ANOVA Summary Table for the Second Regression, Model 2
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Regression 81.425 7 11.632 28.809 .000 Residual 127.994 317 0.404 Total 209.420 324 Predictors: (Constant), Gender of responders, Transformational Leadership, Service year in TNP, Graduation of responders, Laissez-faire Leadership, Age of responders, Transactional Leadership. Dependent Variable: Knowledge Sharing.
93
Table 4.22
Model 2 Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. VIF
B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 0.824 0.295 2.791 0.006 Transformational 0.450 0.063 0.498 7.135 0.000 2.524 Transactional 0.206 0.099 0.147 2.089 0.037 2.576 Laissez-faire 0.053 0.045 0.062 1.171 0.243 1.437 Age 0.049 0.058 0.051 0.852 0.395 1.887 Graduation -0.131 0.083 -0.094 -1.574 0.117 1.855 Service Year 0.158 0.069 0.106 2.285 0.023 1.110 Gender 0.003 0.123 0.001 0.028 0.978 1.014 Dependent Variable: Knowledge Sharing
The multiple regression results related to Model 2 pointed out that adding control
variables to the model did not change the significant effect of the officers` perception of
their managers` both transformational and transactional leadership on the officers`
knowledge sharing ( B = 0.450, p <0.001 and B = 0.206, p < 0.05 respectively). That is
to say, officers` knowledge sharing tends to be higher when their managers
demonstrate either transformational or transactional leadership. These results support
two hypotheses (H8 and H9), so the researcher rejected Null Hypotheses H08 and H09.
Consistent with the results of Model 1, no relationship exists between officers`
perception of their leaders` laissez-faire leadership style and the officers’ knowledge
sharing (B = 0.053, p = 0.243). Therefore, the researcher failed to reject Null Hypothesis
H010.
94
Table 4.23
Summary of OLS Regression Analyses of Officers` Knowledge Sharing
Variables Model 1 Model 2
Knowledge Sharing Knowledge Sharing
Ba (SE) βb VIFc Ba (SE) βb VIFc
Independent Variables
Transformational 0.445*** (0.063) 0.493 2.494 0.450***
(0.063) 0.498 2.524
Transactional 0.219* (0.099) 0.156 2.551 0.206*
(0.099) 0.147 2.576
Laissez-faire 0.079 (0.044) 0.092 1.365 0.053
(0.045) 0.062 1.437
Control Variables
Age 0.049
(0.058) 0.062 1.887
Graduation (-) 0.131
(0.083) (-) 0.094 1.855
Service Year 0.158*
(0.069) 0.105 1.11
Gender 0.003
(0.123) 0.001 1.014
Model R2 0.373 0.389
*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01 (Two tailed test), aUnstandardized regression coefficient, b Standardized regression coefficient, c Variance inflation factor.
95
In terms of the impact of the control variables, the results of Model 2 only
supported Research Hypothesis H13. Officers` years of service in the TNP is
significantly related to their knowledge sharing (B = 0.158, p < 0.05).In other words,
officers` knowledge sharing tends to increase when they have more years of service in
the TNP. Thus the researcher rejected Null Hypothesis H013.
Contrary to expectation, the results of Model 2 did not support Hypotheses H11,
H12, and H14. This is to say, officers` age, education, and gender do not have a
significant effect on their knowledge sharing (B = 0.049, p = 0.395, B = -0.131, p =
0.117, and B = 0.003, p = 0.978, respectively). Thus, Null Hypotheses H011, H012, and
H014 failed to be rejected.
Finally, the researcher examined the data to see whether there was any
multicollinearity problem. According to Mertler and Vannatta (2005), VIF values below
10 and tolerance statistics above .10 reveal that multicollinearity does not create a
problem. As all VIF values are below 10 and tolerance statistics above .10,
multicollinearity is not a problem for the current data.
Mediated Analyses
One of the aims of this study is to examine the effect of the mediating variable –
officers` knowledge sharing—on the dependent variable – officers` willingness to exert
extra effort in Riot Unit (H16). The researcher conducted a mediating analysis in order
to reveal the effect of the third variable on the association between the dependent and
independent variables. Mediation refers to “the effect of an independent variable on a
dependent variable is transmitted through a third variable, called a mediator variable”
96
(Edwards & Lambert, 2007, p. 2). This method was first introduced by Baron and Kenny
(1986) to point out how an intervening variable may interfere in the relationship between
independent and dependent variables (Gelfand, Mensinger, & Tenhave, 2009).
Maximum likelihood is used in AMOS while performing model fitting to determine
the path coefficients. Different from the multiple regression process, in which different
analyses are required for all endogenous variables, one of the benefits of using AMOS
is to calculate the coefficients simultaneously. Apart from the overall model fitting
results, AMOS presents indirect, direct, and total effects of the variables (Meyers,
Gamst, & Guarino, 2006).
In order to maintain the path analysis, the data were evaluated to provide the
overall fit of the data. A fitting model refers to the relationship between the sample
covariance matrix and the model-implied covariance matrix. Besides, the difference
between two matrixes is supposed to be sufficiently small(Wan, 2002). If the difference
is small enough the data fits the theoretical model.
No consensus exists among the researchers in terms of deciding which
goodness-of-fit indicators ought to be reported, and many researchers find it difficult to
determine the rules-of-thumb cutoff criteria and fit indexes for their studies (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). For this study, the normed fit index (NFI), the comparative fit index (CFI),
the chi-square (CMIN), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and
Tucker Lewis index (TLI) were used as goodness-of-fit indicators. Fit indexes can be
classified as absolute or incremental fit indexes (Hu & Bentler, 1999). NFI and CFI
assume “there are no relationships in the data” (Meyers et al., 2006, p. 633).The results
of NFI and CFI should range from 0 to 1. If the values of NFI and CFI are greater than
97
or equal to 0.95, the model fits the data well(Meyers et al., 2006). Besides that, Hu and
Bentler (1999) stated that for continuous data, values of the RMSEA at < 0.06, TLI >
0.95, CFI > 0.95 are appropriate.
On the other hand, “the chi-square statistic is used to test the difference
between the predicted and the observed relationships” (Meyers et al., 2006, p. 633).
The chi-square test compares the observed covariance matrix and the given model’s
covariance structure. For a better model fit, a lower chi-square value is required (Hu &
Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005). However, the chi-square test is sensitive to the sample size
as larger correlations can cause big differences between observed and given
covariance matrixes. At threshold value of 4.0 in the ratio of chi-square and degrees of
freedom (CMIN/DF) is accepted as an indicator for reasonable fitness (Kline, 2005).
RMSEA is one of the most popular measurements among the fit indexes used in
this study. RMSEA is an absolute goodness-of-fit test, which “measures the degree of
model adequacy as based on population discrepancy in relation to degrees of freedom”
(Wan, 2002, p. 82). Avalue of RMSEA less than 0.08 refers to a good fit; values
ranging from 0.08 to 0.1 refer to a moderate fit; and values of RMSEA greater than 0.1
refer to a poor fit (Meyers et al., 2006).
The Tucker Lewis index (TLI) is a kind of incremental fit index. A TLI value of
close to 1 refers to a good fit; 0.95 is accepted as the cutoff for a good model fit;
however, a TLI value of below 0.90 means the model needs to be restructured (Hu &
Bentler, 1999).
Based on the threshold values of the goodness-of-fit indicators, the researcher
assessed the proposed model. In this model, the endogenous (dependent) variables,
98
officers` knowledge sharing and officers` willingness to exert extra effort, and three
exogenous (independent) variables, transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership styles, were analyzed. Besides that, four control variables, age, graduation,
service year, and gender, were also included in this analysis.
The ratio of the chi-square to the degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) of the proposed
model was 17.080, which specifies a poor fit as the assigned criteration was < 4. As
Kline (2005) indicates that the chi-square test is sensitive to the sample size, the
researcher checked out other values. However, the values of CFI, TLI, and NFI were
0.683, 0.429, and 0.675, respectively, which together indicate a poor fit. Likewise, the
value of RMSEA of the proposed model was 0.223, which also indicates a poor fit. As
the values of the reported goodness-of-fit indicators were below the value of the
criterion, the researcher restructured the proposed model.
Firstly, insignificant paths were identified in the proposed model by examining the
nonstandardized coeffcients and their significance levels. The resuts indicated that the
paths between officers` willingness to exert extra effort and the control variables -- age,
graduation, service years, and gender -- were found to be insignificant. Likewise, the
paths between officers` knowledge sharing and the control variables; age, graduation,
and gender were found insignificant. These non-significant control variables were
excluded from the path analysis. In terms of exogenous (independent) variables, the
path with managers` laissez-faire leadership and both officers` willingness to exert extra
effort and their knowledge sharing was found to be insignificant. Likewise, the path
between managers` transactional leadership and officers` willingness to exert extra
99
effort was found to be insignificant. As a result, these insignificant exogenous variables
were eliminated from the proposed model.
The Results of the Respecified Model
After excluding the in-significant variables from the path analysis, the results
reflected that these exclusions improved the model fit (see Table 4.22). The value of
CMIN/DF in the revised model was 2.431, which indicated an acceptable fit. Besides
that, the values of CFI increased from 0.683 to 0.992, TLI increased from 0 .429 to
0.980, and NFI increased from 0.675 to 0.986, respectively, showing support for the
model. Finally, the value of RMSEA in the revised model decreased from 0.223 to
0.066, which indicates a better model fit. As a result, the goodness of fit statistics for the
revised model indicates a good fit for the current path analysis.
Table 4.24
Goodness of Fit Statistics for Generic and Respecified Models
Index Criterion Generic Model
Revised Model
Chi-square (x2) low 341.606 9.722
Degrees of Freedom (df) ≥ .0 20 4
Probability ≥ .05 .000 .045
Likelihood Ratio (x2 /df) < 4 17.080 2.431
Comparative fit index (CFI) > .95 .683 .992
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) > .90 .429 .980
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .95 .675 .986
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .08 .223 .066
100
Figure 4.1 presents the path analysis for the revised model. Arrows demonstrate
the direct and indirect paths. Officers` knowledge sharing and officers` willingness to
exert extra effort represent endogenous (dependent) variables in the model. On the
other side, managers` transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and
officers` years of service refer to exogenous (independent) variables. Officers`
knowledge sharing is supposed to mediate the effect of exogenous variables on
officers` willingness to exert extra effort.
Figure 4.1. Respecified model.
Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects
As shown in Figure 4.1, the total effect of an independent variable is classified
into two categories. One of them is the direct effect of the independent variable on the
outcome variable, and the other is the indirect effect of the independent variable on the
outcome depending on the number of mediators (Alwin & Hauser, 1975). Indirect effects
Transformational
Transactional
.38
Knowledge Sharing
.64
Extra Effort
.45
.71
.19
.14
e1
e2 Service Year
.11
.69
101
demonstrate “how much of a given effect occurs because the manipulation of the
antecedent variable of interest leads to changes in other variables which in turn change
the consequent variable” (Alwin & Hauser, 1975, p. 39).
Figure 4.2, adapted from MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams (2004, p. 102), not
only gives an example in terms of showing the direct, indirect, and total effects, but also
demonstrates the relationship between an independent variable (X), mediating variable
(M), and dependent variable (Y) for a single mediator model. Moreover, this figure
points out the estimation formula for indirect and total effects of the variable.
α β
Ti
Indirect Effect= αβ Direct Effect= TI
Total Effect= αβ + TI= T
Figure 4.2. Indirect model.1
1 Adapted from MacKinnon et al. (2004; p. 102)
Mediator
XM
Independent
Variable
X
Dependent
Variable
YO
102
The terms of mediation and suppression are used to demonstrate the effect of
the third variable in the relationship between an independent and a dependent variable
(MacKinnon et al., 2000). The relationship between variables and the mediator, or
indirect effect, is characterized thus: “the independent variable causes the mediator,
which, in turn causes the dependent variable.” (MacKinnon et al., 2000, p. 173).An
independent variable having a causal association with both the mediating variable and
the dependent variable indicates the existence of mediation (MacKinnon et al., 2000;
MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007). Moreover, the sign and the magnitude of the direct
and indirect parameters indicate whether the third variable is a mediator. First, the
indicator of the mediation emerges if both parameters have the same sign. Second, the
magnitude of the parameters can indicate mediation, such as when the direct effect is
smaller than the total effect. At this point, both the direct and total effect are required to
be statistically significant.(MacKinnon et al., 2000).If no mediation effect is occurring,
the variable may have suppression, a direct, or an indirect effect.
A suppressor effect emerges when a third variable is included into the regression
coefficient between the independent variable and dependent variable by increasing the
magnitude of their relationship (Conger, 1974).Unlike mediation, the third variable
operates as a suppressor when the direct effect of the variable is larger than its total
effect. Another indicator of suppression is the sign of the direct and indirect effects. If
the direct and indirect effects of the variable have opposite signs, this is an indicator of
suppression effect (MacKinnon et al., 2000). Likewise, Tzelgov and Henik (1991) argue
that the suppression effect emerges “when its indirect effect has a sign different from its
validity” (p. 528).
103
The results presented in Table 4.23 indicate that the impacts of managers`
transformational leadership on officers` willingness to exert extra effort is mediated by
officers` knowledge sharing. Both the indirect and total effects of these variables are
statistically significant. Even though managers` transactional leadership and officers`
years of service do not have a direct effect on officers willingness to exert extra effort,
both of these variables` total effects are statistically significant, and both are mediated
by officers knowledge sharing.
Total Effects of Exogenous Variables on Officers` willingness to exert extra effort
According to the results of Table 4.23, managers` transformational leadership
has a positive total effect on officers` willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit (B =
.142, p < .05). Contrary to the findings of the full regression model, this analysis
suggests that transactional leadership is positively correlated with the officers`
willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit (B = .013, p < .01). Finally, officers` years
of service in the TNP has a positive total effect on their willingness to exert extra effort
in the Riot Unit (B = .098, p < .01), which is opposite the findings of the full regression
model.
Direct Effects of Exogenous Variables on officers` willingness to exert extra effort
The results of Table 4.23 demonstrate that managers` transformational
leadership had a significant direct effect on officers` willingness to exert extra effort (B =
.130, p < .05). On the other hand, both the managers` transactional leadership and
104
officers` years of service in the TNP were not directly correlated with officers`
willingness to exert extra effort.
Indirect Effects of Exogenous Variables on officers` willingness to exert extra effort
In this study, the researcher employed the AMOS 16.0 Statistical Analysis
Software to calculate direct, indirect, and total effects of the exogenous variables. Table
4.23 demonstrates that transformational, transactional leadership and officers` service
year in the TNP had an indirect effect on officers` willingness to exert extra effort.
Transformational leadership had a statistically significant indirect effect (positive) on
officers` willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit (B = .012, p < .01). Even though
both managers` transactional leadership and officers` years of service in the TNP did
not have a significant direct effect on officers` willingness to exert extra effort, they had
a statistically significant indirect effect (positive) on officers` willingness to exert extra
effort in the Riot Unit (B = .013, p < .01 and B = .098, p < .01, respectively).
Table 4.25
Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects
Variable Direct Indirect Total Type of Effect
Transformational .130** .012*** .142** Direct, Indirect Transactional .000 .013*** .013*** Mediated Service Year .000 .098*** .098*** Mediated
Indirect effects through mediating variables: Knowledge Sharing. *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, (Two-tailed test)
105
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Introduction
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of managers` leadership styles
on officers` willingness to exert extra effort through officers` knowledge sharing. Three
research questions and sixteen hypotheses were employed to investigate this
relationship. Bivariate correlation, multivariate analysis (OLS regression), and mediated
analysis were used to examine the effect of both demographic variables and managers`
leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) on officers`
willingness to exert extra effort through knowledge sharing.
The three research questions are discussed here according to the findings of the
statistical analyses presented in Chapter IV. Besides that, the theoretical,
methodological, and professional implications of the current study are presented in this
chapter. Finally, the limitations and future recommendations of this study will be
mentioned.
Summary and Discussion of the Findings
Descriptive Statistics
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients (α) for the three leadership styles
(transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and the outcome of extra effort in the
MLQ (5x-Short) were .94, .67, .70, and. 82, respectively. These results indicated that all
leadership styles in the MLQ were reliably represented by their associated items. In
addition, these results also support the reliability results in Bass and Avolio (2004),
106
which stated that the reliability scores (α) of leadership styles and the outcome of extra
effort for the normative database ranged from .70 to .83. Besides that, the Cronbach’s
alpha reliability coefficients (α) for officers` knowledge sharing was .93, indicating that
the items were reliably presented in the Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire. This result
also supported Sveiby (2002) as he reported that the reliability scores were 0.89, 0.85,
0.88, and 0.81 for organizational culture, immediate supervisor, employee attitude, and
work group support, respectively.
Participants responded to the MLQ along the following criteria: 0 = not at all; 1 =
once in a while; 2 = sometimes; 3 = fairly often; and 4 = frequently if not always.
Besides that, participants responded to the Knowledge Sharing Questionnaire along the
following criteria: 0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = neutral, 3 = agree, and 4 =
strongly agree. The mean (M) scores for all leadership styles ranged from 1.76 to 1.94,
demonstrating that subordinate officers’ perceptions about their managers` leadership
styles have occur at different degrees. The mean score for transformational leadership
behaviors was 1.94, indicating that subordinate officers perceived their leaders as
sometimes demonstrating transformational leadership behaviors. These results showed
that police supervisors in the Riot Unit demonstrated less transformation leadership
behavior than the study of Bass and Avolio (2004), who reported that the aggregate
mean score of transformational leadership behaviors for their normative sample was
2.83.
The mean score for transactional leadership behavior was 1.93, indicating that
subordinate officers perceived their leaders as “sometimes” demonstrating transactional
leadership behavior. This result also revealed that police supervisors in the Riot Unit
107
demonstrated more transactional leadership behavior (contingent reward, management
by exception -- passive and active) than the study of Bass and Avolio (2004), who
reported that the aggregate mean score of transactional leadership behavior for their
normative sample was 1.84.
The mean score for laissez-faire leadership behavior was 1.76, indicating that
subordinate officers perceived their leaders as "once in a while" demonstrating laissez-
faire leadership behavior. This result also revealed that police supervisors in the Riot
Unit demonstrate more laissez-faire leadership behavior than the study of Bass and
Avolio (2004), who reported that the aggregate mean score of laissez-faire leadership
behavior for their normative sample was .66.
The mean scores of the leadership outcome, i.e. officers` willingness to exert
extra effort, was 1.85, indicating that the subordinate officers are once in a while or at
most sometimes willing to exert extra effort. Police officers in the Riot Unit in the TNP
are less willing to exert extra effort than the study of Bass and Avolio (2004), who
reported that the mean score of extra effort was 2.78. In terms of knowledge sharing,
the mean score of 1.99 indicates that the subordinate officers sometimes share their
knowledge.
Moreover, the results indicated that no leadership behaviors were often or
frequently demonstrated by police supervisors in the Riot Unit. In addition, police
supervisors mostly presented both transformational and transactional leadership
behaviors compared to laissez-faire leadership behaviors in the Riot Unit. This result
also supports the study of Bass and Avolio (2004).
108
Inferential Statistics
A multivariate analysis (OLS regression) was employed related to the research
questions examining the effect of both demographic variables and managers`
leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) on officers`
willingness to exert extra effort through knowledge sharing. The first research question
was “How do line police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ leadership styles
affect officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in providing better security?” In order to
answer the first research question, seven hypotheses were tested
Table 5.1 Summary of the Hypotheses Testing for the Officers` Willingness to Exert Extra Effort (N = 325)
Hypotheses Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 H1: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transformational leadership style and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
Supported Supported Supported
H2: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transactional leadership style and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
H3: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ laissez-faire leadership style and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
H15: There is a relationship between police officers’ knowledge sharing and officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
- Supported Supported
H4: There is a relationship between officers’ age and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
- - Not Supported
(table continues)
109
Table 5.1 (continued).
Dependent Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 H5: There is a relationship between officers’ education level and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
- - Not Supported
H6: There is a relationship between officers’ experience and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
- - Not Supported
H7: There is a relationship between officers’ gender and their willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit.
- - Not Supported
Both the bivariate correlation and OLS regression analyses indicated that when
police officers working in the Riot Unit perceive that their managers’ leadership style is
transformational, those officers are more willing to exert extra effort in the organization.
Likewise, the results of the bivariate correlation analysis demonstrated that there is a
statistically significant positive relationship between the transactional leadership style
and the officers’ willingness to exert extra effort. However, the OLS regression analyses
unexpectedly showed no relationship between these two variables. These findings
support several studies related to the relationship between transformational leadership
and individuals` willingness to exert extra effort (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Sparks & Schenk,
2001; Hirst, Dick, & Knippenberg, 2009; Whittington, Goodwin, &Murray, 2004;
Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007). As stated by Bass and Avolio (2004), in general,
transformational leadership behaviors are more effective in terms of individuals`
willingness to exert extra effort because followers who are motivated and inspired by
their leaders, whose leaders are respected and trusted, who are encouraged to think
differently, whose concerns and developmental needs are treated individually by their
leaders, are more likely to be willing to exert extra effort. In addition, Bass (1985) states
110
that no matter what type the organization and what the position of the individual is,
"transformational leadership will contribute in an incremental way to extra effort,
effectiveness, and satisfaction as well as to appraise subordinate performance beyond
expectations that are attribute to transactional leadership" (p. 229).
Moreover, the results of the bivariate correlation analysis demonstrated that there
is a statistically significant negative relationship between the laissez-faire leadership
style and the officers’ willingness to exert extra effort. In other words, officers`
willingness to exert extra effort decreases when they perceive their managers`
leadership style as laissez-faire. This result is consistent with the correlation results of
Bass and Avolio (2004). In addition, laissez-faire leadership is generally associated with
reduced performance (Bass, 1985). However; the regression analysis revealed no
relationship between managers` laissez-faire behavior and officers` willingness to exert
extra effort. Bass and Avolio (2004) state that leaders who demonstrate laissez-faire
leadership behavior are absent when followers need guidelines from their leaders. They
prefer to avoid taking part in the decision making process. Consequently, followers are
left to their own devices and not sure whether they are doing the job correctly.
In terms of demographic variables, both the bivariate correlation analysis and
OLS regression analysis indicated that none of the demographic variables (age, gender,
service year, and education) were related to officers` willingness to exert extra effort.
Although Mitchell (2000) points out that level of education and age are two dominant
factors that affect the attitudes and behavior of workers, the results of this study
indicated that there was no relationship between officers` age, education level, and their
willingness to exert extra effort. According to the results of the descriptive statistics,
111
there are not many differences among officers in terms of age and education, which
might explain why the age and education level of officers have no effect on their
willingness to exert extra effort. On the other hand, Bass and Avolio (2004) state that
women leaders are more transformational than their male counterparts in terms of
satisfaction and rated effectiveness. In addition, Kabacoff and Stoffey (2001) assert that
generational gaps among the members working in an organization have an effect on the
behavior of the leader, which, in turn, impacts the outcomes of both the individual and
the organization. However, several studies related to age and leadership derived
different conclusions. For example, Jurkiewicz (2000) investigated work-rated factors in
an organization. These results showed that only three out of 15 work-related factors
were identified as significantly differentiated among different age groups(generation-X
workers and baby boomers).
The second research question was “How do line police officers’ perceptions
about their managers’ leadership styles affect officers’ knowledge sharing in providing
better security?” In order to answer the second research question, seven hypotheses
were tested. As stated by Senge (1990),a leader’s role is to “design systems which
capture, maintain and gain knowledge” (p. 443). Put another way, leaders should have
the ability to be aware of what kind of information processes exist in the organization
and how the people in the organization might be gathered around that knowledge. The
term “Personal Mastery” is used for leadership that “involves formulating a coherent
picture of the results people most desire to gain as individuals” (Senge, 2006, p. 67).
According to Ewest (2010), knowledge leaders should have the ability to merge people
around knowledge and a set of values that are accepted by everyone.
112
The results of both the bivariate correlation and OLS regression analyses
revealed that officers` knowledge sharing increases when riot officers perceive their
managers` leadership style as transformational. Likewise, the results of both the
bivariate correlation and OLS regression analyses indicated that officers` knowledge
sharing increases when they perceive their managers` leadership as transactional as
well. Those results support Bass and Avolio (2004), which found that the most effective
leadership for a given leader depends on his or her representation of both
transformational behaviors (idealized influence [attributed], idealized influence
[behavioral], inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual
consideration) and transactional behaviors. In other words, transformational leadership
is complementary to transactional leadership, a phenomenon which Bass and Avalio
(2004) term the "augmentation effect."
In addition, the results partially support García-Morales, Lloréns-Montes, and
Verdú-Jover (2007), which asserted that transformational leadership has a positive
impact on slack knowledge, absorptive capacity, tacit knowledge, organizational
learning, and innovation. However; the results related to the positive effect of managers’
transformational leadership on officers` knowledge sharing are contrary to the study of
Crawford (2005), which found that transactional leadership does not increase
knowledge management. These different results might stem from different participants
and organizations, e.g. students in graduate program as opposed to officers in a police
organization. Furthermore, Politis (2002) found that transformational leadership has a
statistically positive effect on the knowledge acquisition of the employees. However,
contingent reward (transactional) was found as an impediment to knowledge acquisition
113
in the same study. Consequently, the results related to the relationship between
transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and officers’ knowledge sharing
partially supported Politis (2002).
Surprisingly, neither the bivariate correlation nor the OLS regression analyses
found a relationship between perceived laissez-faire leadership and officers` knowledge
sharing. However, in the study of Crawford (2005), laissez-faire leadership was found
as an inhibitive factor for knowledge management.
Among the control variables, only officers` years of service in the TNP was found
to have a significant positive impact on officers` knowledge sharing. In other words,
police officers who served more years in the TNP have more tendencies to share their
knowledge. Other control variables (age, gender, and education level) were found to
have no effect on officers` knowledge sharing. In terms of the impact of gender on
knowledge sharing, Connelly (2003) found that women who have more positive social
interaction are more likely to share their knowledge in their organization. Contrary to
Connelly (2003), there was no effect of gender on knowledge sharing in the results of
this study, owing perhaps to a harmony between men and women officers in the Riot
Unit. That harmony may cause both men and women officers to feel that there is no
distinction in terms of gender for knowledge sharing inside the Riot Unit.
As stated in descriptive statistics, no huge age and education differences exist in
the Riot Unit among officers, which might explain other results of that study --namely,
age and education levels having no effect on officers` knowledge sharing.
The third research question was “How does line police officers’ knowledge
sharing affect their willingness to exert extra effort in providing better security?” In order
114
to answer the third research question, two hypotheses were tested. As proposed, both
the bivariate correlation and OLS regression analyses indicated that when police
officers` knowledge sharing increases; they are more willing to exert extra effort in the
organization.
Table 5.2
Summary of the Hypotheses Testing for Officers` Knowledge Sharing (N = 325)
Hypotheses Model 1 Model 2 H8: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transformational leadership style and officers’ knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit.
Supported Supported
H9: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ transactional leadership style and officers’ knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit.
Supported Supported
H10: There is a relationship between police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ laissez-faire leadership style and officers’ knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit.
Not Supported
Not Supported
H11: There is a relationship between officers’ age and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. - Not
Supported H12: There is a relationship between officers’ education level and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. - Not
Supported H13: There is a relationship between officers’ service year in TNP and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. - Supported
H14: There is a relationship between officers’ gender and their knowledge sharing in the Riot Unit. - Not
Supported
As stated by Cohen and Levinthal (1990), sharing different and varied knowledge
between individuals increases the organization`s ability more than an individual can
accomplish alone. Knowledge sharing is important as it enables knowledge to move
from the individual to the organizational level, which in turn impacts the competitive
value of the organization (Hendriks, 1999). Knowledge sharing among individuals
facilitates the spread of innovative ideas, which is an important factor for the creativity of
the individuals and their organizations (Armbrecht, Chapas, Chappellow, & Farris,
115
2001). Likewise, different and diverse knowledge shared by riot officers leads to the
dissemination of innovative ideas and causes the officers themselves to be creative,
which in turn, increases their willingness to exert extra effort.
As expected, the results of the mediation analysis demonstrated that the impacts
of managers` transformational leadership on officers` willingness to exert extra effort
were mediated by officers` knowledge sharing. In other words, managers`
transformational leadership has both positive direct and indirect effects on officers`
willingness to exert extra effort. One of the most interesting mediation results was
related to the relationship between managers` transactional leadership and officers`
willingness to exert extra effort and likewise the relationship between officers` service
years in the TNP and officers` willingness to exert extra effort. If only the OLS analyses
had been used in this study, the researcher would conclude that managers`
transactional leadership did not have a statistically significant effect on officers`
willingness to exert extra effort. Even though managers` transactional leadership does
not have a direct effect on officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the OLS analysis
results, according to the mediation analysis results, managers` transactional leadership
is mediated by officers knowledge sharing. This is to say, managers` transactional
leadership has an indirect effect on officers` willingness to exert extra effort. As with the
case of transactional leadership, if only the OLS analyses had been used in this study,
the researcher would have concluded that officers` service years in the TNP did not
have a statistically significant effect on their willingness to exert extra effort. However,
officers` service years in the TNP was mediated by their knowledge sharing and had
statistically significant indirect effect on their willingness to exert extra effort in the
116
results of the mediation analyses. Based on these analyses, these results support Bass
and Avolio’s claim (2004) that a leader may represent both transformational and
transactional behaviors according to different situations.
Theoretical and Methodological Implications
Several studies have been performed related to transformational theory in
different working environments with an emphasis on revealing the relationship between
transformational leadership and individuals` willingness to exert extra effort; however,
transformational leadership theory has not been tested on the Riot Unit of the TNP in
Ankara before. As previously stated, law enforcement units have different culture and
working environments. Crucially, riot officers have working environments that present
both physiological and physical difficulties. What makes this study important is that
transformational theory was tested in this never-before-studied environment. Therefore
the results will make a valuable contribution to the leadership literature and
transformational theory. This study generally supported Bass and Avolio’s (2004) claim
that a police leader may demonstrate both transformational and transactional
behaviours depending on the situations.
This study distributed a cross-sectional survey to line police officers working in
the Riot Unit of the TNP in Ankara. Both an MLQ (5X-Short) form and the Knowledge
Sharing Questionnaire were utilized as the survey instruments. The researcher used
contingent reward, referring to leaders who clarify their expectations to their
subordinates and provide rewards in reply to their positive work performance, under the
transactional leadership variable. Contingent reward could be evaluated as another
117
independent variable in order to see its effect on line police officers` knowledge sharing,
which in turn, impacts on their willingness to exert extra effort.
Professional Implications
This study has important implications for both police supervisors and information
professionals. First of all, according to the results of this study, line police officers`
willingness to exert extra effort is positively influenced by their managers` both
transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. Although managers`
transactional leadership style had no direct effect on officers` willingness to exert extra
effort, it had an indirect effect through officers` knowledge sharing. Therefore, police
supervisors and information professionals need to demonstrate both transformational
and transactional behaviours according to different situations. Otherwise, concentrating
only transformational leadership to the deficit of transactional leadership or vice versa
might cause unintended adverse effects (Bass &Avolio, 2004).
In addition, according to the findings of this study, officers` knowledge sharing is
positively influenced by their managers` both transformational and transactional
leadership behaviours. Especially in Riot Units, sharing explicit and implicit knowledge
among riot officers is an important factor that might prevent them from repeating the
same mistake and increase their experience while providing security in all legal and
illegal demonstrations and riots. Thus, police supervisors should be encouraged to
demonstrate both transformational and transactional leadership styles to increase
knowledge sharing in police organizations. As indicated by several studies (Bennis &
Nanus, 1985; Davis, 2003; Sidle, 2005) leadership skills can be learned; therefore,
118
sufficient leadership and knowledge management training led by professional
instructors should be provided to all police supervisors working in different departments
in the Turkish National Police (TNP), including the Riot Units. The training should have
a comprehensive curriculum including theoretical and practical information. First, the
curriculum should explain the importance of leadership styles of police supervisors for
subordinates` willingness to exert extra effort, knowledge sharing, and more generally,
overall TNP` performance as well. Second, the curriculum should cover the major
leadership theories and present an overview of knowledge management to give a
general idea of why these two factors are important to the organization. Second, after
giving theoretical information about leadership styles and theories, the advantages and
disadvantages of different leadership styles in different working environments(public,
private, and law enforcement) should be stated in terms of their effect on knowledge
sharing and management. Finally, for practical information, the curriculum should
include real leadership problems faced in the TNP in terms of directingpolice
supervisers` attention to what kinds of leadership have a positive effect on willingness to
extra effort and knowledge sharing in the TNP.
As stated in Bartol and Srivastava (2002), knowledge sharing in organizations
has an important impact on knowledge creation, organizational learning, and
performance achievement. Especially, knowledge sharing among riot officers is of
critical importance in providing security in all legal and illegal riots and demonstrations.
According to Lahneman (2004), an organziational culture that supports and rewards
knowledge sharing is required to structuresuccessful knowledge management in law
enforcement. In this respect, both police supervisors and information professionals may
119
employ the contingent reward, one of the compenents of transactional leadership, as an
incentive to generate a positive effect on the knowledge sharing of individuals in the
organization. For example, riot police supervisors may draft evaluation criteria about
knowledge sharing behaviors of the officers and provide rewards in exchange for their
contributions of knowlege sharing behaviors in the Riot Unit. This might not only
increase the knowledge sharing behaviors of officers but also augment their willingness
to exert extra effort in all legal and illegal demonstrations and riots in providing better
security. However, simply giving a reward will not provide the intended results unless
efficient guidelines for rewards of value and clear goals are stated (Bartol & Locke,
2000) .
Most of the managers arenot aware of how important their role is bolstering
knowledge sharing in their organization though they assert that knowledge is one of the
most valuable resources in the organization (Berg, Dean, Gottschalk, &Karslen, 2008).
Being a reflective practitioner is important for knowledge sharing in a police organization
(Holgersson, 2007). Therefore, police supervisors need to encourage officers to be
reflective practitioners. Without a sufficient dialogue between police supervisors and
officers, knowledge management policies geared towards increasing knowledge sharing
will not work even if they are well-formulated. Thus, if needed, police supervisiors need
to support officers through clear channels of communication in order to be active
participants in the environment of police work.
The four key behaviors of transformational leadership may be utilizedby all
managers including riot supervisors to boost the subordinates` willingness to exert extra
effort and knowledge sharing in the organization. First, through idealized influence,
120
police supervisors may build confidence in their subordinates, which is an important
accelerant while implementing a radical change in organization. In addition, that
confidence will cause officers to believe and appreciate their supervisors, which in turn
increasestheir willingness to exert extra effort. Moreover, through police supervisors`
idealized influence behavior, police officers will feel that their supervisors demonstrate
high moral and ethical behavior and use their positions to accomplish the aims of
organization. That kind of feeling encourages officers to share their knowledge in the
organization.
Second, through inspirational motivation, police supervisorsmayinspire and
motivate their followersbyshowing enthusiasm and optimism, pointing out positive
results, and supporting team work. Such behaviors might not only increase officers`
willingness to exert extra effort but also boost knowledge sharing in the organization.
Third, through intellectual stimulation, police supervisors may stimulate the
efforts of officers to reveal their innovative ideas and creativities to solve problems.
They may also stimulate achange in the modeof thinking about problems. Especially,
such behaviors might encourage officers to exert extra effort beyond expectation and
increasetheir sharing of knowledge as followers are not criticized for expressing their
problem-solving ideas even though those ideas might bedifferent from their managers.
Finally, through individualized consideration, police supervisors may evaluate
each officer individually and try to respond to their different needs and wishes in the
right way. With the acceptance of individual differences of officers, police supervisors
might assign tasks according to each officer’s different level of needs and specifications,
which in turn increase officers` willingness to exert extra effort beyond expectation.
121
Limitations and Future Recommendations
The goal of this study was to examine the effect of line police officers`
perceptions about their managers` leadership styles on their knowledge sharing, which
in turn impacts their willingness to exert extra effort. Although this study has many
valuable findings, as in the other research studies, this study naturally has some
limitations.
The first limitation is related to the generalizability of the findings. The researcher
distributed this survey study to line police officers working in one of the biggest Riot
Units of the TNP in Ankara, Turkey to investigate the effect of leadership styles on
knowledge sharing, which in turn impacts willingness to exert extra effort. However,
each Riot Unit has a different number of officers (size), structure type (force, group, and
team), and characteristics which may affect the results. In addition, each Riot Unit is in a
different region or city; this diversity of situations might affect the perception of police
officers about their managers` leadership. For example, police officers working in Riot
Units in the east part of Turkey face more terrorist activities than police officers working
in the west part of Turkey. Because of this reason, perceptions of police officers about
their managers` leadership might be different according to different regions. Therefore,
the results of this study should be viewed with consideration of these issues in
generalizability. Future studies should pay attention to these factors and might conduct
the same survey to different Riot Units in different regions to analyze more deeply the
perception of police officers about their managers` leadership styles.
Second, the bias of line police officers might have affected the results of the
current study. Some of the police officers might have given intentionally positive
122
responses to the leadership questions in order to maintain a good relationship with their
supervisors.
Finally, the researcher employed a quantitative research design. However,
simply employing a qualitative study to measure the perception of police officers about
their managers` leadership styles might not be sufficient to understand the general
picture of police leadership. Therefore, future researchers are recommended to
conduct both qualitative and quantitative research in their studies to understand more
deeply the perceptions of officers about their managers` leadership styles.
128
University of North Texas Review Board
Informed Notice
Before participating in this study, it is important that you read the following explanation
of the purpose, benefits and risks of the study and how it will be conducted.
Title of Study: “The Impact of Leadership Styles and Knowledge Sharing on Police
officers’ Willingness to Exert Extra Effort: A Study in Riot Unit of Turkish National Police”
Responsible Investigator: The study is conducted under the supervision of University
of North Texas (UNT) faculty Dr. Jiangping Chen from the Department of Library and
Information Sciences.
Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this research is to examine the effects of police
officers' leaders' leadership styles on police officers’ knowledge sharing, which, in turn,
affects officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in the Riot Unit of Turkish National
Police. A cross-sectional survey design will be utilized to answer the following
questions:
RQ: 1. How do line police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ leadership
styles affect officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in providing better security?
RQ: 2. How do line police officers’ perceptions about their managers’ leadership
styles affect officers’ knowledge sharing in providing better security?
RQ: 3. How does line police officers’ knowledge sharing affect their willingness to
exert extra effort in providing better security?
Study Procedures: Participation in the study is voluntary and there is no risk or liability
for participation or withdrawal. The survey you will be asked can take approximately 10-
15 minutes to complete.
129
Foreseeable Risks or Benefits: This study is not expected have any foreseeable risks
or direct benefit to you. However, the findings of this study can help police managers to
give them an idea about which leadership styles increase knowledge sharing, which, in
turn, increase officers’ willingness to exert extra effort in police organizations. The
findings will also serve as guidance for police managers commanding line police officers
in a high-risk environment such as social movements, demonstrations, and riots.
Because they will be aware of how important it is to create a knowledge sharing
environment that enables sharing with their subordinates to provide better security in
gatherings.
Maintaining Confidentiality of Research Records: Personal identifiable information
will not be collected and the confidentiality of personal information (if any) will be
maintained in publications or presentations. You may print and keep this page for your
records.
Questions about the Study: If you have any questions about the study, you may
contact Dr. Chen via email [email protected]
Review for the Protection of Participants: This research study is reviewed and
approved by the UNT Institutional Review Board (IRB). University IRB can be contacted
at (001-940) 565-3940 with any questions regarding the rights of research subjects.
In order to participate in this study please continue to the next page.
Thanks for your contributions.
131
1. What is your gender?
__Male __Female
2. What is your age?
……….
3. For how many years have you
been working in Ankara Riot Unit?
……. Years
4. For how many years have you
been working in police force?
……. years.
5. For how many years have you
been working in other departments
except for Riot Unit?
…….
6. What is the highest level of
education completed?
1. Middle School
2. High school
3.Two-yearCollege
4.University
5. Masters
6.Doctorate
133
This questionnaire is used to describe the leadership style of your immediate
supervisor as you perceive it. Answer all items on this answer sheet. If an item is
irrelevant, or if you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer
blank. Please answer this questionnaire anonymously.
Forty-five descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how
frequently each statement fits your most current supervisor that you have had for at
least three months. Use the following rating scale:
Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently, if not
always
0 1 2 3 4
The person I am rating …
Not at
all
Once
in a
while
Sometimes Fairly
often
Freque
ntly if
not
always
1. Provides me with assistance in
exchange for my efforts 0 1 2 3 4
2. Re-examines critical assumptions
to question whether they are
appropriate 0 1 2 3 4
3. Fails to interfere until problems
become serious 0 1 2 3 4
134
4. Focuses attention on irregularities,
mistakes, exceptions, and
deviations from standards
0 1 2 3 4
5. Avoids getting involved when
important issues arise 0 1 2 3 4
6. Talks about his/her most important
values and beliefs 0 1 2 3 4
7. Is absent when needed 0 1 2 3 4
8. Seeks differing perspectives when
solving problems 0 1 2 3 4
9. Talks optimistically about the future 0 1 2 3 4
10. Instills pride in me for being
associated with him/her 0 1 2 3 4
11. Discusses in specific terms who is
responsible for achieving
performance targets
0 1 2 3 4
12. Waits for things to go wrong before
taking action 0 1 2 3 4
139
1. Workgroup Support: When you think about the attitudes and behaviors’ of those in
your nearest work group, how much do you agree/disagree with the following
statements?
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
0 1 2 3 4
2.Immediate Supervisor: To what extent do you agree with the following?
My immediate supervisor(s)…?
1. There is much I could learn from
colleagues in my workgroup. 0 1 2 3 4
2. My colleagues contribute to a trusting
atmosphere in our workgroup. 0 1 2 3 4
6. ...encourages me to come up with
innovative solutions to work-related
problems.
0 1 2 3 4
7. ...organizes regular meetings to share
information. 0 1 2 3 4
140
3. (Department) Culture outside my nearest workgroup: When you think about this
organization culture outside my immediate work group and the behavior of leaders, how
much do you agree/disagree with the following statements?
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
0 1 2 3 4
4. My own Attitude: When you think about your own attitude toward sharing knowhow,
how much do you agree/disagree with the following statements? Think about the
organization in general!
11. The people I report to in the organization keep me
informed. 0 1 2 3 4
12. Sharing of knowledge is encouraged by the
organization in action and not only in words. 0 1 2 3 4
18. Most of my expertise has developed as a result of
working together with colleagues in this organization. 0 1 2 3 4
19. Sharing information translates to deeper knowledge in
this organization. 0 1 2 3 4
20. Combining the knowledge amongst staff has resulted in
many new ideas and solutions for this organization. 0 1 2 3 4
147
REFERENCES
Adebayo, D. O. (2005). Perceived workplace fairness, transformational leadership and motivation in the Nigeria police: Implications for change. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 7(2), 110-122.
Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975).The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40(1), 37-47.
Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22-42.
Armbrecht, F.M.R., Chapas, R. B., Chappelow, C. C., Farris, G. F. (2001). Knowledge management in research and development. Research-Technology Management, 44(4), 28-48.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. CA: Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership: Cases on transactional and transformational leadership. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004).Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler set. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. California: Thomson and Wadsworth.
Bailey, C., & Clarke, M. (2000). How do managers use knowledge about knowledge management? Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 235-243.
Barlett,, J. E., Jr., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43-50.
Bartol, K. M., &Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64.
Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2000).Incentives and motivation. In S. Rynes & B. Gerhardt (Eds.), Compensation in organizations: Current research and practice (pp. 104-147). San Francisco, CA: Lexington Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
148
Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm for leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,8(1), 9-33.
Bass, B. M. & Avalio, B. J. (1990).The implication of transactional and transformational Leadership for individual, team and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4, 231-272.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994).Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bass, B., &Avolio, B. (2000).MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nded.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008).The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York NY: Free Pr.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. 1987).Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Management, 12(1), 73.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006).Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999).Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.
Bates, M. J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), 10-14.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Organizational learning: The management of the collective self. New Management, 3(1), 6-13.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985).Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Harper & Row Paperbacks.
Berg, M. E., Dean, G., Gottschalk, P., & Karlsen, J. T. (2008).Police management roles as determinants of knowledge sharing attitude in criminal investigations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21, 271-284.
Berry, W. D. & Feldman, S. (1985). Multiple regression in practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
149
Bodla, M., & Nawaz, M. (2010).Transformational leadership style and its relationship with satisfaction. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(1), 370.
Bollinger, A. S., & Smith, R. D. (2001).Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 8-18.
Boomsma, A., & Hoogland, J. J. (2001). The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation models: Present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 139-168). Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Brunetto, Y., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2005).The role of management post-NPM in the implementation of new policies affecting police officers' practices. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 28(2), 221-241.
Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 32.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage publications.
Bukowitz, W. R., & Williams, R. L. (1999).The knowledge management field book. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Burke, R. J. (1989). Career stages, satisfaction, and well-being among police officers. Psychological Reports, 65(1), 3–12.
Burns, J. M. G. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burtha, M. (2001).Working with leaders. Knowledge Management Review, 4(5), 7.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007).The influence of leaders' and other referents' normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 35-48.
Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness? Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 87-98.
Cawthon, L. D. (1996). Leadership: The great man theory revisited. Business Horizons, 39(3), 1-4.
150
Cerrah, I. (2006). Polis. In U. Cizre (Ed.), Almanak Turkiye 2005 guvenliksektoruvedemokratikgozetim (pp.82–96). Istanbul: TESEV.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and individual difference. Victoria, BPS: Blackwell Publishing.
Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Chen, L. Y. (2004). An examination of the relationships among leadership behaviors, knowledge sharing, and organization's marketing effectiveness in professional service firms that have been engaged in strategic alliances. Retrieved January 27, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I. (Publication No. AAT 3125998).
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
Conger, A. J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 35-46.
Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003).Predictors of employees' perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 294-301.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. CA: Sage Publications.
Crawford, C. (2005). Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management,9(6), 6.
Creswell, (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Davis, J. R. (2003). Learning to lead: A handbook for postsecondary administrators. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Dawson, R. (2000). Knowledge capabilities as the focus of organizational development and strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(4), 320- 327.
Densten, I.L. (2003). Senior police leadership: Does rank matter? Policing, 26(3), 400-18.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1.
151
Ewest, T. (2010). Knowledge management and organizational effectiveness: Considering applications for leadership. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 8(11), 137.
Fassinger, R. E. (1987). Use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4).425-436.
Finn, P. (2000). On-the-job-stress in policing--reducing it and preventing it. National Institute of Justice Journal, 242, 18-24.
Fitzgerald, T. J. (2000). Police in society. New York: H. W. Wilson.
Flood, P. C., Hannan, E., Smith, K. G., Turner, T., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. (2000). Chief executive leadership style, consensus decision making, and top management team effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 401-420.
Foos, T., Schum, G., & Rothenberg, S. (2006). Tacit knowledge transfer and the knowledge disconnect. Journal of Knowledge Management,10(1), 6-18.
Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey research method. New Bury Park, CA: Sage Publication.
García-Morales, V. J., Lloréns-Montes, F. J., & Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2007). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational performance through knowledge and innovation. British Journal of Management, 19(4), 299-319.
Gehring, D. R. (2007). Applying traits theory of leadership to project management. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 35(3), 109-109.
Gelfand, L. A., Mensinger, J. L., & Tenhave, T. (2009). Mediation analysis: A retrospective snapshot of practice and more recent directions. Journal of General Psychology, 136(2), 153-178.
Gellis, Z. D. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. Social Work Research, 25(1), 17-26.
Glomseth, R., Gottschalk, P., & Solli-Sæther, H. (2007).Occupational culture as determinant of knowledge sharing and performance in police investigations. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 35(2), 96-107.
Gnyawali, D. R., Stewart, A. C., & Grant, J. H. (1997). Creation and utilization of organizational knowledge: An empirical study of the roles of organizational learning on strategic decision making. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 16-20.
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 23-30.
152
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw Hill Inc.
Gottschalk, P. (2007). How knowledge organizations work: The case of detectives in police investigations. Human Systems Management, 26(3), 173-180.
Gray, P. H., & Meister, D. B. (2004). Knowledge sourcing effectiveness. Management Science, 821-834.
Grayson, C. J., & O'Dell, C. S. (1998). Mining your hidden resources. Across the Board, 35, 23-29.
Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21.
Herbert, S. (1896). The study of sociology. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346-357.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, H. K. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 23(5), 26-31.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1974). So you want to know your leadership style? Training & Development Journal, 28, 22-37.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1977). Management of organizational behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2004). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (8th ed.). New Delhi, India: Prentice-Hall.
Hirst, G., van Dick, R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 63-982.
Holgersson, S., Gottschalk, P., & Dean, G. (2008). Knowledge management in law enforcement: Knowledge views for patrolling police officers. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 10(1), 76-88.
153
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990).Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 317-341.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337.
Ipe, M. (2004). Knowledge sharing in organizations: An analysis of motivators and inhibitors. Education Resources Information Center. Retrieved February 15, 2009 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp
Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28, 315-336.
Jaramillo, F., Nixon, R., & Sams, D. (2005).The effect of law enforcement stress on organizational commitment. Policing, 28(2), 321-336.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel Management, 29(1), 55-74.
Kabacoff, R. I., & Stoffey, R. W. (2001). Age differences in organizational leadership. 16th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Kest, R. T. (2000). Principles of leadership: Leadership management. Social Psychology, 86(1), 77-94.
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Karakiliç, H. (2007). The importance of evaluating psychiatric illnesses in an armed profession: Summary of the process of mental health evaluation at the Turkish police organization. International Journal of Mental Health, 36(3), 84-94.
154
King, G., Keohane, R.O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executive, 5(2), 48-60.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Koskinen, K. U. (2003). Evaluation of tacit knowledge utilization in work units. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 67-81.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648-657.
Lahneman, W. J. (2004). Knowledge-sharing in the intelligence community after 9/11. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 17(4), 614-633.
Lee, J. N. (2001). The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information & Management, 38(5), 323-335.
Levy, P. E., Cober, R. T., & Miller, T. (2002).The effect of transformational and transactional leadership perceptions on feedback-seeking intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(8), 1703-1720.
Lin, H. (2006). Impact of organizational support on organizational intention to facilitate knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 4(1), 26.
Lin, H. F., & Lee, G. G. (2004).Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behavior. Management Decision, 42(1), 108-125.
Loke J. C. F., (2001). Leadership behaviors: Effects on job satisfaction, productivity and organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Management, 9(4), 191-204.
Lowry, D. (2004). Keys to personal success. Santa Ana, CA: True Colors.
Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 15-41.
Machlup, F. (1983).Semantic quirks in studies of information. In F. Machlup & U. Mansfield (Eds.), The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages (pp. 641-671). NY: Wiley.
155
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99-128.
Maslov, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
McDermott, R., & O'Dell, C. (2001).Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76-85.
Mertler, C. A. and Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G., and Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mitchell, S. (2003). American generations: Who they are, how they live, what they think. Ithaca, NY: New Strategist Publications Inc.
Miner, J. B. (2005).Organizational behavior: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
Morello, T., & Caldwell, F. (2001). What are knowledge workers? What makes them think? (SPA-12-7780) Stamford: Gartner Research Group.
Murphy, S. A., & Drodge, E. N. (2004). The four I's of police leadership: A case study heuristic. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 6(1), 1-15.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995).The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies foster creativity and innovation for competitive advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: The transfer of internal knowledge and best practice Free Press. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Inc.
Ozcan, Y. Z., & Gultekin, R. (2000).Police and politics in Turkey [Electronic version]. British criminology conference: Selected proceedings (Vol. 3).
Ozmen, A. (2008). An analytical study of the impact of the perception of leadership styles on job satisfaction within the Turkish national police based on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Doctoral dissertation. Sam Houston State University.
156
Pan, S. L., & Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge management in practice: An exploratory case study. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 11(3), 59-74.
Politis, J. D. (2002). Transformational and transactional leadership enabling (disabling) knowledge acquisition of self-managed teams: The consequences for performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 186-197.
Prusak, L., & Davenport, T. H. (1998).Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Raykov, T., Tomer, A. & Nesselroade, J. R. (1991). Reporting structural equation modeling results in psychology and aging: Some proposed guidelines. Psychology and Aging, 6(4), 499-503.
Reuss-Ianni, E. (1993). Two cultures of policing: Street cops and management cops. London: Transaction Publishers.
Ribiere, V. M., & Sitar, A. S. (2003). Critical role of leadership in nurturing a knowledge-supporting culture. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 39-48.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007).Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020-1030.
Schyns, B., & Sanders, K. (2007). In the eyes of the beholder: Personality and the perception of leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2345-2363.
Schyns, B., Kroon, B., & Moors, G. (2008). Follower characteristics and the perception of leader-member exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(7), 772-788.
Senge, P. (1990).The leaders` new work: Building learning organization. Sloan Management Review, 5(1), 440-461.
Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sidle, C. C. (2005). The leadership wheel: Five steps for achieving individual and organizational greatness. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Singh, S. K. (2008). Role of leadership in knowledge management: A study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 3-15.
157
Snowden, D. (1999). A framework for creating a sustainable knowledge management program. The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999-2000, 52-65.
Srikantaiah, T. K., & Koenig, M. E. D. (2001).Knowledge management for the information professional. Medford, N.J: American Society for Information Science.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35-71.
Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York, NY: Free Press.
Strickland, O. (1999). When is internal consistency reliability assessment inappropriate? Journal of Nursing Measurement, 7(1).
Sveiby, K. E. (2001). A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 344-358.
Sveiby, K. E., & Simons, R. (2002). Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work-an empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management,6(5), 420-433.
Toor, S. R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15.
Tzelgov, J., &Henik, A. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 524-536.
Wah, L. (2000). Making knowledge stick. In J. W. Cortada, & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook 2000–2001 (pp. 145–156). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Wan, T. T. H. (2002). Evidence-based health care management: Multivariate modeling approaches. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wasik, B.H. (2004). Handbook of family literacy. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004). Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design: Independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 593-606.
158
Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 214-228.
Yang, J. T. (2007a). The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 83-90.
Yang, J. T. (2007b). Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative culture. Tourism Management, 28(2), 530-543.
Yeakey, G. W. (2002). Situational leadership. Military Review, 82(1), 72-82.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289.
Zajac, E. J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1991). Blind spots in industry and competitor analysis: Implications of interfirm (mis)perceptions for strategic decisions. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 37-56.
Zmud, R. W., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87-111.